# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals Pages 4050 - 4280

Response to Public Comments Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

November 14, 2010

40 CFR Part 131 Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596

This document is part of a larger documentChapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# III.E - PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FL CANALS No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.E.1 - PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS Comment ID 0579.001.004
Author Name: Meinhardt N. Organization: Fed EPA trying to use same numeric number criteria on canals as they would on more sensitive lakes & streams. Canals were originally created for flooding & irrigation. South Florida very different from rest of State. Four different types of soils. One speaker said the Fed EPA "was trying to eat the whole elephant instead of taking one bite at a time." One of the pictures showing algae blooms was 5 years old(Lake Apopka) & the speaker said they clean up had already started & fishing already better. 

# Comment ID 0587.001.002
Author Name: Gildan P. Organization: Greenberg Traurig on behalf of the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility The ECR's comments are as follows (note that the ECR's comments are its own and are not the comments of the individual entities that created the ECR). The ECR's comments are limited to the "South Florida Canals" section of the draft Rule as that encompasses the geographic region in which the ECR's facilities are located. 1 . The ECR adopts and restates the comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) from MOCK, ROOS & ASSOCIATES, INC, on behalf of the 40+ co-permittees in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated January 26, 2010, a copy of which is attached to this correspondence.
2. In addition, the ECR recommends that the South Florida Canals section of the proposed rule be deleted as the current narrative nutrient criteria utilized by the FDEP for South Florida Canals (Florida"s currently applicable narrative nutrient criterion provides, in part, that "in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 62-302­ 530(47)(b)) provides a superior alternative that more adequately and efficiently protects the South Florida Canals and better serves the overall public interest than does the proposed Rule. The FDEP rule permits for a case by case application that best addresses each specific canal and tailors a response to meet the environmental needs of such

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4050Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals canal taking into account the specific inflows into those water bodies and the outflows from those water bodies. The USEPA proposed Rule uses a one-size-fits-all approach for the South Florida Canals that is both overbroad and under-inclusive, providing inadequate protection of certain impaired canals while being over-protective of most other canals that are not impaired. The USEPA acknowledges that the hydrology of the different areas and regions in South Florida where the South Florida Canals are located is itself so diverse as to be incapable of application of numerical averages proposed by the USEPA proposed Rule ("Canals in south Florida vary greatly in size and depth. They can be anywhere from a few feet wide and a few feet deep to hundreds of feet wide and as deep as 30-35 feet. South Florida canals vary in their hydrology and behavior due to their size, function, and seasonality. Shallow canals with slow water flow have poor turnover of water and little flushing. Large canals also may have low flow and turnover during the dry season. In contrast, during the wet season these same large canals are flowing systems that quickly move large volumes of water, as they were designed to accomplish." [pg 138 of Proposed Rule]). At a minimum, the ECR would recommend that the proposed South Florida Canals numeric criteria include an exemption for publicly owned treatment works with advanced waste treatment governed by Section 403.086(1)(c), Florida Statutes, such that discharge permits and receiving water body water quality determinations are made under the existing FDEP rule and not the numeric averages. 3 . Reclaim water is intended to reduce the amount of surficial water withdrawn through separate wells or potable water wells for irrigation purposes. The use of reclaim water also helps to reduce the quantity of fertilizers used. The reduction in fertilizer usage offsets any nutrients found in the reclaim water. Therefore, the effect of reclaim water on nutrient loading in stormwater runoff or stormwater ponds should be considered "de minimus" for purposes of implementing the nutrient removal rule (NRR). Accordingly, the ECR recommends that reclaim water be exempted from the requirement to meet the TN and TP levels proposed for South Florida Canals. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.001
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. The undersigned is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Florida with over 40 years experience in engineering and over 35 years experience in water resources. I represent the Town of Haverhill, the City of Atlantis, the Palm Beach County NPDES Group, and my firm StormwaterJ Engineering. I am convinced the proposed numeric nutrient criterion in South Florida for total phosphorous in rivers and streams of 0 .042 mg/I is lower than justifiable. I also believe the chlorophyll-a criterion should be eliminated, see below. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.007
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4051Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

7. In SE Florida there is a high degree of exchange between the groundwater and canal waters. Two possible results of ignoring this high degree of exchange are: setting nutrient levels too low because NNC are established based on lower groundwater concentrations that have migrated to surface waters but are not typically achievable in surface waters; OR NNC are set at levels lower than groundwater such that they cannot be achieved when groundwater is flowing into canals. It is believed that in Palm Beach County the dissolved phosphorus levels in groundwater exceed the proposed level of 0 .042 ppm in streams. This appears to be arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.010
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 10. Chlorophyll-a is an indicator of nutrient levels. Once NNC are set the indicator is no longer needed, is redundant, and could be unnecessarily restrictive. Even if considered as a criterion it should not be at 4 ug/I as this far exceeds the State standard of 20 ug/I. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.013
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 13. Canals are not rivers or streams, see previous discussion. All of the cited reasoning herein indicates different water body classifications are needed for canals. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.017
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 2. South East Florida and Palm Beach County are significantly different from South Florida. It is not appropriate to have the same criteria for all of South Florida. At least the following have separate water quality relevant features that cannot be combined without introducing significant error into the criteria:

- Lake Okeechobee

- Florida Everglades National Park

- Loxahatchee Slough

- Loxahatchee River

- Biscayne Aquifer Area (Dade and Broward Counties)

- Eastern Palm Beach County due to canal network and surficial aquifer

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4052Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

- Conservation Area 1 (Loxahatchee National Refuge)

- Conservation Areas 2A, 2B and 3

- Florida Keys

- Big Cypress National Preserve

- Everglades Agricultural Area South Florida is the only area in the contiguous United States that is sub-tropical. As such our temperatures are higher. This results in higher water body temperatures with a lower saturation point of dissolved oxygen (Henry's law). Rainfall patterns vary significantly across South Florida. The amounts of rainfall are high across all of South Florida with the highest amounts in SE Florida. The intensities of rainfall are highest in SE Florida. The frequency of rainfall is higher (more often) south of Lake Okeechobee. The duration of storms can be very short at times . Finally the aerial distribution is significantly more diverse in areas of constantly developing thunderstorms than in areas subject to frontal systems (as occurs in the winter in South Florida). Stormwater runoff is not only affected by the rainfall amounts, intensity, frequency, duration, and aerial distribution as cited above; runoff is a function of the antecedent moisture conditions, soils, seasonal variation, groundwater conditions, and highly altered surface water management systems from natural conditions. There is a significant network of drainage canals in SE Florida not present in other areas of South Florida much less the rest of Florida. The primary drainage canals were constructed to "drain the swamp" as water was the "common enemy". The Corps of Engineers did their job in construction the "Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project". These canals as well as all of the other 298 District canals that were developed are part of the necessary infrastructure to provide for flood protection and water supply for the people that live and visit South Florida. Canals are deep narrow water conveyances meant to transport water and are not conducive to promoting biological or botanical activity due to their depth, turbidity, and interaction with groundwater. Canals are also not conducive to having dissolved oxygen levels approaching saturation or 5 mg/I for that matter. The soils and surficial aquifer systems specifically in Dade and Broward Counties with the Biscayne aquifer and in Palm Beach County with its sandy surficial aquifer are significantly different from the rest of South Florida. The groundwater and canal waters are inseparable. The soils in the Everglades and Everglades Agricultural Area are muck. These highly organic soils have inherent properties that separate them from any other areas in Florida especially with regards to nutrients and water quality issues. The Everglades is a virtual phosphorous desert. This is the underlying cause and effect relationship between phosphorous, the Everglades, and the legal settlement of 10 ppb (0.010 ppm) limit on total phosphorous. On the other hand, the nitrogen content of muck is quite high.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4053Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals South Florida is almost flat. This combined with the high rainfall, soils, high groundwater table, matrix of canals in SE Florida, groundwater/surface water interface/interchange, and other factors cited and not cited result in at least Palm Beach County and Dade and Broward Counties needing separate criteria. The aforementioned statement is not to say smaller basins aren't needed and does not address areas other than SE Florida. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.028
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 13. Canals are not rivers or streams, also see discussions of groundwater interfaces. No further explanation is warranted. Using NNC for canals established as rivers and streams is arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 0613.001.005
Author Name: Musgrove M. Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation [Handwritten Comment] Canals - Move Water - Need category reflecting volume discharge. 

# Comment ID 0632.001.003
Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated Last -- but on second point I want to make, how are local governments, farmers, businesses going to comply with this? It's been many times alluded to but not specifically on the canal criteria. I was in South Florida last week with the South Florida Water Management District and made this quote: "Compliance with scientific grounds for applying nutrient criteria to canals is weak." 

# Comment ID 0639.001.002
Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District With that in mind we recommend the following technical comments and concerns be carefully considered. We will be submitting written comments, but for today due in part to our large extensive network on canals, we will focus on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4054Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals South Florida canal project. We have not observed analyses to support the conclusion that concentration for now proposed canal criteria will affect the designated uses of the canals. The links between nutrients and biology in canals has not been clearly demonstrated. They have not found convincing evidence canals or nitrogen or phosphorous. Furthermore, current effort by the district in which we were inventorying the number of ecological studies within canals, demonstrated that these systems have not been studied to the degree of other South Florida water bodies, such as the Everglades. The DEP Numeric Nutrient Tact, which I'm a member, also observes there's a relative lack of information on conditional water quality, ecology, and links to designated uses. The tact did not recommend the use of current EPA guidance for developing numeric nutrient criteria. For this reason, this in part led to the DEP not assigning numeric nutrient criteria to the South Florida canals in their draft criteria last July. Further evidence of the South Florida canal proposed rule does not designate, is on the chlorophyll A criteria as quoting for the rule "EPA considered chlorophyll A to be an appropriate indicator of nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of observed seasonal flow regime. It is not linked to the flora and fauna types of canals that exist in South Florida." In addition to lines of evidence, approach used in justifying correlating criteria for lakes was not established for canals. We would also note that there are no criterion for canals in Peninsula watershed or anywhere else in the state. It is very important we establish sound science in this numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking process. The potential ramifications of that criteria on federally mandated area further necessitates that the criteria be developed based on sound science, even if it requires additional time. The currently proposed criteria will require costly overhauls, redesigns of major projects, and create another layer of the administrative process to expedite federal projects for clearer waters and natural system. 

# Comment ID 0641.001.003
Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Lastly, the rule itself offers no evidence or guidance with regard to the methods or technology that should be utilized and employed during implementation. In South Florida for example, how would the nutrient control be implemented for the existing network of canals while simultaneously providing a central drainage for flood relief, the task for which they were originally intended. The FDEP has even questioned if existing technology or both agriculture and convention use for municipal wastewater facilities could even achieve the new proposed the EPA criteria. 

# Comment ID 0659.001.002
Author Name: Charles J. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts Our membership includes water control and improvement districts who have the primary purpose, if not the sole purpose, of protecting the public welfare and safety through flood control. They're not water treatment districts; they're flood control districts. There are approximately 94 such districts in the State of Florida, and they dominate the landscape of South Florida. Our association cannot support the proposed criteria that was published in the January Federal Register. We have several concerns with the methodology that is being employed or being proposed. We believe it's more of a product of complying with time frames, unreasonable time frames that were set forth in a consent

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4055Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals decree and not on developing sound science. We're particularly concerned with the approach being employed for south Florida canals. It's our understanding that the reference sites approach, the canals that were chosen in the approach, were primarily fed by groundwater and not by surface water flow. 

# Comment ID 0659.001.003
Author Name: Charles J. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts The majority of the canals in South Florida are fed by surface water, and we believe it's more appropriate to choose canals that are fed by surface water. It would be representative of the numbers that you would expect to see for artificial canals. We're also concerned that the canals that were selected in this reference base approach for South Florida canals are those canals that were protective of class III designated uses. As you're well aware of, the State of Florida has the class III -- it's the catchall classification that includes natural systems and artificial systems. The State of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection has recently recognized and acknowledged that comparing canals to natural systems is not a reasonable approach, and they're in the process of creating a subclass for artificial canals. We believe that the EPA should also recognize it's unreasonable to compare canals to natural systems, and by selecting canals that are protective of class III designated uses is basically comparing canals to natural systems, and we would recommend that you select more appropriate canals that are more representative of the limited designated uses as DEP is doing. 

# Comment ID 0665.001.001
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League I'm Philip Parsons. I'm speaking today for the Florida Sugar Cane League. The members of the league are the growers and processors in the area generally known as the Everglades Agricultural Area. There are some activities close to that, outside of the area, but it's the agricultural area of rich organic soils identified by the Corps of Engineers through soil surveys that preceded the South Florida -- central and southern Florida Flood Control District. We are served primarily by class IV canals. Our direct discharges are, for the most part, discharges to class IV canals. But those canals flow into the class III canals of the Water Management District that are covered by your proposal. And those canals, as they are currently operated for flood control and water supply, are critical to the continuation of our activities. This concern will be shared by many in South Florida because all of the canals of the central and southern Florida project maintained by the South Florida Water Management District are class III.



# Comment ID 0681.001.001
Author Name: Tilton A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4056Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Good evening. Andy Tilton from Johnson Engineering for the record. I thank you for being here and think that numeric nutrient standards are something that we need in this state. I just have some things I would like you to consider as you're determining what those standard would be. One, there are several canals across South Florida there are that are merely conduits from a developed area to a treatment area. As a conduits they fall into the same classification -- the way I read the rule as drafted -- as one that delivers tide water. What it would mean is those canals would have to have pretreatment before the treatment. It's sort of like having to treat your wastewater before it gets from your toilet to the wastewater plant. Not a real practical situation. 

# Comment ID 0710.001.002
Author Name: Charles J. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts My comments today are going to focus on best management practices. Based on your Slide 18, it appears the intent is to encourage the implementation of BMPs to reduce loading, in addition to treatment. With regard to BMPs, I think it's important to note how water control and improvement districts in Florida operate. As I stated yesterday, they are limited-purpose governments, meaning they have limited powers related directly to flood control. The genesis of their creation was to make Florida, particularly South Florida, suitable for habitation cultivation. Some of our members date back as early as 1915 in providing flood control for people within this jurisdiction for 90-plus years. During that time numerous agricultural operations, residential developments and commercial developments have occurred around these districts, discharging directly into their canals. Our members have a legislative power to convey water, a legislative authority to convey water, but they lack the power to prevent the flow of water into their canals. Simply put, they have to accept the residential, agricultural and commercial runoff into their canals. Unlike cities and counties, our members lack the authority to impose BMPs on those they serve. Consequently, BMPs for waters entering our canals are not an option. We ask EPA to acknowledge this limitation and provide appropriate flexibility in the proposed rule, possibly in setting the numeric numbers themselves and/or in the SAC process. In a related manner, you're aware of our Florida Department of Environmental Protection's moving forward with revising the surface water classification system to recognize unique characteristics of canals by proposing a Class III limited classification, which will be subject to EPA approval. In order to demonstrate that removal of a designated use within a canal is appropriate, an applicant will have to demonstrate that the use that is being sought to be removed cannot be obtained by implementation of BMPs. As I have stated, although we operate the canals, we lack the general authority to implement BMPs for the waters coming into our canals. We respectfully ask EPA to provide DEP with some guidance to recognize this limitation in reviewing petitions to reclassify artificial canals to proposed Class III classification, whereby if an operator of a canal cannot impose or implement BMPs, demonstration of BMPs will not allow attainment of the designated use as not appropriate or applicable.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4057Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0729.001.004
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport In Northport the canals are fishable and swimmable and, by golly, there's plenty of fish in there. In January, with the freeze, I saw 10,000 fish float up. There's plenty of fish. Very nice fish. Snook, tilapia. 

# Comment ID 0750.001.004
Author Name: Handley J. Organization: The same case stands for our waters on our property. Should we choose to hold up water and try to clean that water on ranch lands, we're at the mercy of the plumbing in South Florida in the name of flood control, all the canals that have been put in place. When they pull the plug or open the locks, water tends to leave. 

# Comment ID 0790.001.003
Author Name: Hammill R. Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association We're also very concerned about the canal issue. The University of Florida soil scientists reviewed that and kind of gave us a warning on that one saying that in order to meet some of these phosphorous standards, we would have to tremendously reduce our inputs and our crops, therefore having a ripple effect on the ability to grow citrus and other agriculture in the region. 

# Comment ID 0792.001.002
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Everglades Agricultural Environmental Protection District Among the projects that have been funded, there are two that I think are particularly relevant to your proposed criteria. Both these research reports will be submitted for the record. But to explain these to you, each project of the two in particular that we'll submit were based on canal sampling in different ways. Of the two, the one that's probably of more interest to you is one in which we took over 30 years of data consistently gathered by the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is south of Orlando, and serves the Disney complex. And they used Hester-Dandy samplers, and under the state's water quality criteria, Shannon-Weaver Index interpreting that data is the basis for our biological integrity criteria. So for 30 years throughout the district, more than 30 years actually, but for purposes of our report 30 years.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4058Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals They've taken this data consistently, and it gives you a way to compare canal systems to natural streams, and it gives you a way to compare a variety of nutrient inputs and biological responses, and what it shows generally is that natural streams can support healthy, well-balanced aquatic life at nutrient levels much higher than those that you're proposing, which I don't think is a surprise, and secondly, that canals or streams that have been channelized for some time don't provide an adequate habitat to support nutrient sensitive species. So that even if you achieve the levels that you've proposed, there may be limited environmental benefit from the expenditure of the funds. But this Reedy Creek data and the report that interprets it is the issue that I think you'll have the most interest in. 

# Comment ID 0792.001.003
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Everglades Agricultural Environmental Protection District Reedy creek was entirely natural, remains natural today, had a fairly constant flow, and for many years Reedy Creek had background levels of phosphorous at about 70 parts per million, and for 15 or 20 years, though, they had a permitted discharge that elevated the ambient phosphorous to around 300 parts per million, and then the effluent was removed that was used for beneficial irrigation in the Disney complex. But the Hester-Dandy sample data had no significant change before. During or after, the results were essentially the same. There was no difference at all in what was reflected in that. Now, I understand that this is one of several ways to monitor aquatic health. It does tend to integrate a number of factors and has been relied on as a way to get a fairly accurate and useful measure of aquatic health. So the second point is that Bonnet Creek was channelized long before the sampling began, always had the background levels of phosphorous at 70 parts per billion. And even when Reedy Creek's effluent elevated its ambient to 300 and you compared Bonnet Creek which was channelized at 70 to Reedy Creek at 300, Bonnet Creek never matched the aquatic health of Reedy Creek because it was habitat limited. That was the only difference between the two in this 30 years of record, and we will submit all that to you, along with other research projects that we've had. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0794.001.001
Author Name: Davis D. Organization: Glades Water Control Districts David Davis, district manager for the Glades water control districts. It's a pleasure to be here and thank you for you guys being here. Historically the existing network of canals provide both necessary drainage and flood control, and I'm hoping the EPA has considered the implications should a hurricane or a large rain event impact the legislative mandated mission of our district's flood control. 

# Comment ID 0796.001.008

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4059Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Albergo N. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists And I'm really baffled by the agency's treatment of canals in South Florida. 

# Comment ID 0797.001.002
Author Name: Siniawsky J. Organization: Plantation Acres Improvement District The canals are very narrow, they're very shallow. There's no boating, there's no fishing, there's no swimming. The canals were not designed, nor is the system designed in any way to mimic the natural flowing systems. It's not designed for the natural attenuation of nutrients, and it was never designed to accommodate water treatment facilities or structures. In fact, PAID is at a build out situation, almost entirely residential, so there's no physical space within the district to create structures and facilities that may be necessary for water treatment. 

# Comment ID 0802.001.003
Author Name: Todd K. Organization: Palm Beach County The drainage network constructed in Palm Beach County in the early 1900s was done so to offer flood protection for the residents of the county, and when that system was designed many decades ago, it did not consider the functions that these proposed regulations are taking into account now. There needs to be some recognition that a drainage system that was designed for one function cannot be revised in a short period of time to meet a different set of functions without bankrupting the entity responsible for complying with these proposed standards. Palm Beach County would like to thank you for providing us with an opportunity to be able to explain to you some very real concerns that we have concerning this proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 0804.001.005
Author Name: Judah R. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners I implore you also, do not eliminate the South Florida canals. That's what's creating the impact with the nutrient loading into our natural water bodies. Thank you very much.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4060Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0805.001.002
Author Name: Sumner J. Organization: Like many other speakers, our primary concern is over the proposed criteria for South Florida canals. The proposed rule as written establishes a nutrient criteria that is neither realistic nor attainable when applied to these manmade systems. Because of that unattainable nature, it would seem also that a realistic assessment of the cost of implementing these criteria has not and likely cannot be made. Incidentally, we operate approximately 340 miles of these canals within our districts. The canals within these districts were designed, and so are operated for their legally required purposes, which you've heard from some other districts this morning, which are to provide for flood protection and irrigation to the landowners within those districts. Another thing I will point out, particularly in our districts in response to the Everglades Protection Act over the last 10 to 12 years, we have implemented at significant cost to not only our landowners but also the state and federal government diversion projects which take, as you know, Mr. King, 80 percent of the water that used to be, minimum of 80 percent of the water that used to be discharged to Lake Okeechobee, sends that water south where the water is then treated prior to being discharged. In the case of these diversion districts, that raises what I think is a legitimate question. When proposing these numeric criteria on our canals, what exactly are the downstream waters that we're attempting to protect. I encourage the agency to slow down and look at the true purpose of these manmade systems, what they were designed for, and take that into account before moving forward with the proposed rule that would establish a criteria that both does not fit and would be prohibitively expensive, and I'll yield back the rest of my time. 

# Comment ID 0808.001.002
Author Name: Charles J. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts For the canals and structures that were permitted or constructed or altered after the Clean Water Act, they were authorized by the federal government pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In connection with the state and federal permitting, these canals and structures that came after the Clean Water Act, they were certified to be protective of instream and downstream water quality as set pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Consequently we believe it's important to acknowledge the alleged human cause and condition that this rule is intended to address as it relates to our canal system were in fact authorized by the federal government and for many canals constructed with federal funding. 

# Comment ID 0811.001.002
Author Name: Bournique D. Organization: Indian River Citrus League We have a lot of issues with what you're proposing, but the two key ones are first on Florida's east coast there is an old

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4061Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals canal system, the C series canal systems in Martin and St. Lucie Counties that drains the majority of our citrus that was designed to drain that region 60, 70 years ago. 

# Comment ID 0812.001.001
Author Name: Brandon K. Organization: Palm Beach County Municipal NPDA Steering Committee Good afternoon. My name is Karen Brandon. I'm a professional engineer with the firm of AECOM, and I'm speaking on behalf of Palm Beach County municipal NPDA steering committee which coordinates the NPDS permit program for 41 governmental entities in Palm Beach County, and I'm reading a statement that was prepared by our consultant, Alan Wertepny. He was unable to be here today. Our NPDS permit covers all municipal storm water facilities and requires each entity to implement storm water management programs with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants into receiving water bodies. If promulgated, EPA's nutrient criteria will impose a considerable financial impact on the municipalities. The proposed rule recommends that nutrient criteria be applied to all discharges into and out of manmade lakes and manmade canals. The proposed nutrient levels for these manmade canals in the South Florida Region are about three times more stringent than the proposed levels for natural rivers and streams. This seems unreasonable, particularly when you consider that the purpose of these systems is conveyance for flood protection and water supply, and that they were never intended for the creation and support of aquatic communities. Comparing the existing water quality data with the proposed rule indicatives approximately 60 percent reduction in nutrient levels in Palm Beach County canals will be necessary. 

# Comment ID 0813.001.003
Author Name: Teich L. Organization: City of Fort Lauderdale The City of Fort Lauderdale resides for the most part east of the salt water barriers, yet all of our waters except the lakes maybe are designated by this rule as canals. The clarity of salt water vs. estuarine vs. fresh water isn't in the rule, so right now we're going to be modified under the modified rule for NS and salt water. Additional comments will be forwarded. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.007
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill Point number 13, and so far we've been ineffective in getting DEP to change this, canals are not streams or rivers, and we really do need a different criteria, a different classification. The class III limited which is currently proposed is not different. It's still class III. So canals are not rivers, are not streams. They're deep, narrow water conveyances that were

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4062Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals not meant for biological activity. 

# Comment ID 0816.001.002
Author Name: Perry M. Organization: Florida Oceanographic Society If you looked at Kissimmee River, for instance, a nice meandering river system, we channelized that system and made a C38 canal out of it in 1969. We diked around Lake Okeechobee, a natural lake system that used to flow south to the Everglades back in the 1930s, and we did that for flood control. So a system of canals and lots of systems have been built for -- particularly starting for flood control in the 1940s on up to now for also doing drainage and water supply for agriculture and other uses. Those canals are now dumping into estuaries and coastal waters, they're dumping into other bodies of waters, into lakes that need to be addressed because we're trying to treat a lake like a natural lake system, we're trying to look at a river as a natural river system, and over in our area we have the St. Lucie estuary right up north here, and I notice in your Tallahassee slides you didn't have one, but in this slide you did of the Microcystis algae bloom in 2005 in the St. Lucie estuary, which came from Lake Okeechobee. The lake was connected to the St. Lucie estuary back in the 1930s, and it needs to be addressed because that canal directly flows into the system. 

# Comment ID 0817.001.005
Author Name: Martin D. Organization: Sierra Club The other argument that's been used often by the other side is that canals should not be part of the system. But the problem is, all the streams, when they built those canals, where did they build them, where there were existing streams and rivers. Those canals replaced the existing streams and rivers, so you have to focus on that because that's where the water is flowing. You cannot not focus on that. We need to make canals operate more like the original streams and rivers. 

# Comment ID 0818.001.004
Author Name: Sherreffs D. Organization: Florida Clean Water Action The Clean Water Act was intended to protect all waters, and it's important to recognize that Florida's canals and those included in the southeast do support recreational and subsistence fishing as well as discharge ground water into outstanding Florida waters and the aquifer. 

# Comment ID 0821.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4063Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Miedema B. Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida Lastly, we don't believe that using national rivers and streams is appropriate for manmade canals conveyance systems. We're in the Everglades agricultural area, and we rely on the canals to get water supply and for flood protection. It would undermine Everglades restoration. We wouldn't be able to use the storm water treatment areas that the state and farmers paying the agricultural privilege tax has spent over a billion dollars in building. 

# Comment ID 0829.001.005
Author Name: Quashus P. Organization: Collier County Audubon Societies of Southwest Florida Every gallon of water that comes to Southwest Florida, we need that fresh water for our grasses and for our salinity balance. It's every bit as important to us as that gallon of water to the orange groves or to the sugar fields or to the vegetable farming. It's all one water system and we need to make it right for all of us. We need to adjust it for the specific conditions that we have in the coast and in some of our natural rivers. We need to address the fact that some of the manmade canals that currently have some biological value will have to be treated in a special way. We need to realize, I think, that some of my colleagues have noted that where those canals were once our natural streams and rivers, and there has to be some kind of addressing of that. The Caloosahatchee where I live is still a wide estuary with lots of nice islands, lots of mangrove shoreline, not many snook anymore. One of the saddest things that happened, we just had this huge freeze. Indian River Lagoon had literally tens of thousands of dead snook. We had tens of thousands of snook dead down in the Keys. I didn't have a single dead snook. The water got just as cold. It used to be written up regularly in Florida Sportsman as the place to go fishing for snook in the winter. I guess maybe they were somewhere else. 

# Comment ID 0830.001.001
Author Name: Lipp D. Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Good afternoon. My name is Dennis Lipp. I serve as the vice mayor of the rural town of Loxahatchee Groves here in Palm Beach County, and I'm speaking on behalf of the town today. My comments are short. Our town was incorporated just a few years ago, but the State of Florida through the 298 process established Loxahatchee Groves in 1917. So we've been a community long before certain other communities here in Palm Beach County and we're based on canals. If it wasn't for the canals throughout Loxahatchee Groves during the wet season, we would be totally flooded, and during the dry seasons we would be on fire. During the process we have box cut canals. Most of the year we just keep our water in our canals because that's also our fire suppression means. And during the dry season we actually have permission from South Florida Water Management District to actually back pump to keep our waters at a prescribed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4064Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals level. So when we look at the canals as far as being a class III system, yeah, but really no. It's more of a class IV. You know, we have the occasional otter that will come through, but they don't live there. And we'll have a few turtles. That's the Seminole for Loxahatchee is turtle waters. We're a small community. The impact of needing to meet nitrogen and phosphorous standards will be a great impact to us. We don't have a great tax base. We're a rural community, farmers horsemen and some residents that just like to live on a big piece of land. Thank you for your time, and I hope you do make the right decisions for us. 

# Comment ID 0836.001.002
Author Name: Boyd B. Organization: As the rain water comes into Florida, South Florida Water Management will regulate their canals either if they've got too much they're dumping it out if they're trying to keep salt water intrusion from coming in they back it up. And as those canals raise and lower, the people are helping the nurseries out in the Loxahatchee area, they're back pumping and storing water. As that back pumped water comes, it stores in our drainage ditches which we have surrounding our entire property, not counting the fact that our neighbor's property drains into those same ditches, and we have on our other nursery, which we used to have, we had 13 homes, they were draining. So we have rain falling on everybody, water being pushed back and forth and around and around, and we're going to come up with a number that the last one on the rung is going to be responsible for, which would be me and the thousands of people just like me. 

# Comment ID 0836.001.005
Author Name: Boyd B. Organization: MR. KING: Mr. Boyd, a quick question for you, two questions. Do you happen to know what your ditches are classified as, what category? MR. BOYD: I'm sorry, what was that? MR. KING: Do you happen to know what category your ditches are categorized as? MR. BOYD: My what are categorized in? MR. KING: The ditches or the water around your property, what category? MR. BOYD: I purchased an old orange grove in 1999, and it was used at that point as drainage for the orange grove. And what I put in there was old culverts that had crushed -- the Town of Loxahatchee required that I put in ones where they drained up so that they could drain up into me and use me for storage capacity. I don't know the technical term, but there was very many restrictions on even the angle which I contoured the land. We had to hold a certain amount of water on the property. MR. KING: Thank you. MR. BOYD: They back pump onto our property, so. A VOICE: We're 3s. MR. KING: 3s. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0843.001.003
Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Southeast Florida Utility Council

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4065Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals I would also want to state that the canals were never meant to be treated as streams, and the databases are even separate. So I think that you are placing a burden on the trafficway that should not be treated as environmental pristine waters. 

# Comment ID 0845.001.004
Author Name: Lassiter K. Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations We are told that these limits would require building large storage facilities to treat stormwater runoff before it can be bleached into our canals at the tide. Our communities do not have space for building these stormwater large water storage facilities because the houses, communities abut up next to each other. So the only way you could build a storage facility is to have eminent domain and to condemn a lot of homes to build places for water. 

# Comment ID 0846.001.005
Author Name: Martin P. Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District Lake Worth Drainage District operates -- and please take this one, listen to this paragraph. Lake Worth Drainage District, within its four basins, is defined by the South Florida Water Management District using storage treatment area technology that they currently employ. We predict that 21,000 acres of land would be required to meet the proposed phosphorus standards. This is equivalent to 23 I-95 corridors side by side from the south county line of Boca Raton, all the way to Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach, a one mile stretch, and would have to be located in the I-95 corridor. And the reason for that, it would have to be clean before it enters the Intracoastal waterway. 

# Comment ID 0846.001.006
Author Name: Martin P. Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District Further, these STAs -- I'm sorry. This would require the taking of economic proportion that includes residential, commercial and industrial properties. Florida Class III recreational waters are defined as fishable, swimmable. In some cases, as with nutrients, this is a bit of a quandary. Fishable waters are typically higher in nutrient loading, while swimmable waters are low in nutrients. We certainly don't want earaches, do we? In this case -- In the case of Lake Worth Drainage District the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission performed a study of Lake Worth Drainage canal system. They found it to be an excellent fishery. Excellent. Grade A. The drainage canals were never designed to be swimmable. The value of the district's canals for total phosphorus varies greatly from the proposed 42 micrograms per liter standard to below that standard to well above that standard. In conclusion, Lake Worth Drainage District urges you, urges the EPA to work with the department to make decisions based on watershed approach, look at

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4066Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals the total maximum daily load program strongly and establish fair values that are science-based and site specific. And with that, I thank you very much for hearing me. 

# Comment ID 0849.001.003
Author Name: Ryan J. Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District Specific comments. My main concern is for our water control district, the 29 miles of canals that serve an 8,000 acre ag res community with respect to primarily flood control, but also irrigation, water table maintenance and wild flower protection. Our canals are not used for boating recreation, nor are they stream-like water sources for fish and animal wildlife. Most important, we only discharge water into the South Florida Water Management District canals during a heavy rain or flooding event. Most of the time we keep the rain drainage in the canals for ground filtration and we only use EPA approved methods for vegetation control in the canals. I believe EPA is exceeding the intent and purpose of the Clean Water Act in certain respects. I understand that your basic jurisdiction to approve numeric nutrient criteria is a section of the Clean Water Act that deals with the lakes and flowing water, estuaries and coastal water. Trying to force essential flood control canals into a definition of streams and flowing waters is a stretch. That is just wrong. Also, the Consent Decree, that seems to be your source of immediate activity, does not appear to include canals per paragraph four of the Consent Decree unless you force a re-definition of Florida's Category III waters, which I don't believe you are empowered to do. Our flood control canals only discharge excess water during a heavy rainfall or flood event. Then the water goes into South Florida Water Management District's stormwater treatment areas for special vegetation filtration and absorption of phosphorus and nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 0850.001.001
Author Name: Ryan J. Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District Excuse me. John Ryan, supervisor of Loxahatchee Water Control District. A few months ago we had what we referred to as a microburst rain event. We had 7.9 inches over about half our district in a three hour period. I think that calculates out to about 744 million gallons of water. Now some of it goes into the land, which is sandy. Some of it goes into canals, which will hold a little bit of water. But that is an example of the uncontrolled scale of what happens with our flood control canals. And I think that's not just our situation, but others. So that's just for perspective. 

# Comment ID 0851.001.001
Author Name: Ryan E. Organization:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4067Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals The water -- people have been running tests in our canals and I am told that our nitrogen and phosphorus are at acceptable levels, although our chlorophyll is not. My -- We have never had an algae bloom in our canal. My concern is that the remedy that you all don't understand is the way our South Florida drainage systems work, and that you don't understand the costs that this would put on a small community such as ours. We have eight canals that drain directly into the C-51 canal. 

# Comment ID 0852.001.005
Author Name: Clark D. Organization: Cry of the Water You know, during the drought times it's not so bad. But we get these big pulses of freshwater that they release 'cause it is all flood control, and we get the pulses, we see the algae first appear sometimes right near the locks where they let the water go, like even into the Hillsboro canal. I got a picture from some people out on the reef, they sent me a picture of this other filamentous algae, this green filamentous algae, not the Lyngbya algae calcareous it's called, bright green florescent stuff, and it was out on the reef. And I said well, I recognize that stuff. Sure enough, we took some samples and tested it, same stuff. These pulses really are affecting the coastal communities and we really need to address it. And I say we can't afford not to do this, because unlike the swamp which can be covered in a short period of time if you change what's going there, a lot of these costal habitats and ecosystems, some of these reefs took many, many years to grow, sometimes centuries, and they can be wiped out in a very short period of time. So I don't want cattails in my swamp, but I don't want the Lyngbya on the reef either. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0856.001.002
Author Name: Curry P. Organization: Even canals are different. There are canals, major canals that are feeder canals. There are -- Where I live in The Acreage there is a canal on 60th Street called the M Canal and that runs water right to the City of West Palm Beach. And I have seen those algae blooms that you are talking about because that water is coming from Lake Okeechobee. And the water in Lake Okeechobee is coming from North Florida. 

# Comment ID 0856.001.005
Author Name: Curry P. Organization: I think that when you do your canal - designations for canals you have to consider the types of canals, what the canals are doing. Where this woman spoke about Loxahatchee Groves, we are the next community north of them. A lot of our canals are used just for drainage from properties. The water is going when it finally is released -- our water goes to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4068Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals retention areas where it is cleaned up and then what is left is needed to be released, is released to South Florida Water Management who does have their own clean-up. 

# Comment ID 0857.001.003
Author Name: Wedgeworth G. Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida The primary canal, Everglades agricultural area, are all man made and were created almost a century ago. As part of the original Everglades Drainage District, their purpose was for drainage, primarily flood protection, but also provided irrigation to the adjacent farmlands and transportation originally to coastal products that we grew. We believe that the numeric criteria being proposed South Florida are unnecessary, stringently, to support the existing historic biology of the water bodies. 

# Comment ID 0857.001.004
Author Name: Wedgeworth G. Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida The EEA farmers, along with the South Florida Water Management District, have invested a billion dollars in implementing on farm agricultural best management practices and stormwater treatment areas to assure water quality goals are met in the Everglades agricultural area. EPA proposed criteria would precluded the ability to flow water into these systems, thus wasting a billion dollars of taxpayer money and potentially starving the Everglades for water it says it needs. 

# Comment ID 0860.001.002
Author Name: del Real P. Organization: Aurora's Voice Just a couple of comments in response to some of the other speakers. First, the canals, we are happy that the canals have been included in your standards. Water is water is water. Somebody mentioned that those were man made. I think the more appropriate term would be man formed. The water didn't get pumped in there from out of the area. Those canals were designed to channel existing water. So that water was not man made, it was man channeled by the Army Corp of Engineers. So we do respect that designation of canals being included in your standards. 

# Comment ID 0868.001.003
Author Name: Cassel K.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4069Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: We have to look at water. I agree that water in qualities has improved in areas, but yes, there are certain needs for qualifications of parameters. However, I fully believe that it needs to be site specific. Canals that are made for flood control and drainage need to be looked at very differently than streams and lakes 'cause they are not utilized for the same purposes. Thank you for your attention. 

# Comment ID 0871.001.001
Author Name: Mahoney S. Organization: Sierra Club, Miami group Good evening. My name is Steve Mahoney, I represent the Sierra Club, Miami group, with 3,000 members. And I drove up here to this meeting because it's the closest we have, of course, to our area. We are all aware, I think, that excessive nitrogen and phosphorus have led to eutrophication and harmful algal blooms and dead zones in some areas. We saw in the handout that you gave out earlier that we can see from canals, for example, that feed into Biscayne Bay, which is close to where I live and where, of course, surrounded by Miami. A lot of that nitrogen and phosphorus trickles down into there. It all ends up going into the canals. You can argue that canals are different from rivers and so on, but they all end up going into -- it's all part of the surface waters really which are all interconnected in the end and they all end up in the ocean, in the marine ecosystem, whether it's in-shore or off-shore, in the end. 

# Comment ID 0884.001.014
Author Name: Wertephy A. Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 4. Page 4212 of the Proposed Rule states that "there is an existing TP criterion of 0.010 mg/l that currently applies to the marshes and adjacent canals within the Everglades Protection Area (Rule 62-302.540, F.A.C.)." Review of this Rule clearly indicates that the TP criterion of 0.010 mg/1 applies to the Everglades Protection Area which is defined as Water Conservation Areas 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B and the Everglades National Park. It does not state that the canals in the Everglades Protection Area have a criterion of 0.010 mg/1. The Proposed Rule should be corrected to be in agreement with the State Rule. 

# Comment ID 0891.001.002
Author Name: Hushon J. Organization: The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for streams should be applied to the South Florida Region as well, not just the canals criteria as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in South Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4070Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals (Caloosahatchee River, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River, Henderson Creek, and the Turner River just to name a few). The FL Dept. of Environmental Protection classifies those streams and rivers as fresh up to their tidal portions and therefore, the streams criteria - not the canal criteria - should apply to those fresh waterbodies. The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria will support Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutant thresholds and Basin Management Action Plans for clean up and compliance. Having definitive numeric standards will make it easier to accurately identify impaired waters, and for identifying the measures needed for cleaning them up. 

# Comment ID 0892.001.002
Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for streams should be applied to the South Florida Region as well, not just the canals criteria as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in South Florida (Caloosahatchee River, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River, Henderson Creek, and the Turner River just to name a few). The FL Dept. of Environmental Protection classifies those streams and rivers as fresh up to their tidal portions and therefore, the streams criteria - not the canal criteria - should apply to those fresh waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 0935.001.001
Author Name: Perez A. Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities The City of Hollywood Public Utilities Department has reviewed EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria and offers the following comments: The proposed 4 ug/I (geometric mean) chlorophyll _a criterion for South Florida canals is likely not attainable on a consistent basis and is much lower than the 20 ug/I standard currently in effect with the Florida DEP Impaired Waters Rule (FAC Chapter 62-303) . Regional canals are not natural systems and were primarily intended for flood control purposes. These constructed waterways are being held to a proposed standard that is more reflective of a natural environment. 

# Comment ID 0935.001.003
Author Name: Perez A. Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4071Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals South Florida canals are subject to year-round warm weather, intense light, and low flow or stagnant conditions . Algae populations will likely flourish in this environment, regardless of ambient nutrient concentrations . 

# Comment ID 0947.001.013
Author Name: Alexander J. Organization: Alico, Inc. On the first point, "the Numeric Criteria appear to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science", I offer the following analysis: Table 4 of EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida sets an arbitrary maximum for Phosphorus at 42 parts per billion (shown as .042 mg/L) for all canals in FDEP's South Florida region, with the exception of canals within the Everglades Protection Area, where the Total Phosphorus criterion of 10 parts per billion currently applies. 

# Comment ID 0957.001.001
Author Name: Jackson J. Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association A static numeric criteria is not practical for water bodies as diverse as Florida's as determined by over 10 years of testing by the FL DEP. Trying to meet these mathematic modeled numbers will break the bank for the state and local governments. With reclaimed water running 6 ppm of N and the criteria being set at 1.6 for that region is a case in point. 

# Comment ID 0968.001.001
Author Name: Denison T. Organization: In the rule, only canal criteria were specifically developed for the South Region. These South Florida canal criteria were developed using monitoring data from only South Florida canals. These canal criteria were not specifically derived for streams located in south Florida WBIDs or other streams located in the South Region. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to apply the canal criteria to rivers and streams without further investigation. 

# Comment ID 0976.001.002
Author Name: Brayton P. Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4072Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals We have a reverse osmosis water treatment plant that treats brackish ground water to the highest drinking water standards. The by-product of this process is concentrated brine. We have disposed of this by-product for more than 30 years into a salt water canal. The residents along the canal are happy to have the flushing effect which eliminated a dead end. Manatees and many other creatures live in the canal without any ill effects. 

# Comment ID 0976.001.003
Author Name: Brayton P. Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc. The proposed rule has a standard for phosphorus that is exceeded by the water already in the canal. This canal has several outfalls for storm water run-off that were installed by our county government. It is for these reasons that we ask for some common sense to prevail. The members of our association are already some of the hardest hit by the recession and unemployment. They can barely pay our existing water rates let alone a dramatic increase we would have to charge if we were forced to dispose of the brine by deep well injection. The cost of such a well is at least $6 million. The total value of our assets is only $3.4 million. 

# Comment ID 0981-1.001.002
Author Name: Melchiori R. Organization: Becker Holding Corporation It is with this background that we are expressing our concerns with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria that are being promulgated by EPA. Our concerns are manifested in the scientific basis of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, the policy implications of the proposed regulations, and the potential economic impacts on our business and Florida agriculture as a whole. The following comments have been organized in these three general areas in order to summarize the Becker Companies' concern with the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria regulations. Scientific Basis - As the EPA has acknowledged in the proposed regulations as well as the accompanying supplementary information and Technical Support Document (TSD), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has been working for nearly a decade to prepare the appropriate scientific basis, criteria, and data base necessary to prepare well founded watershed based numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. In fact, much of the basis for the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA relies on and in many cases is similar to that under development by FDEP. However, the most significant gap in the FDEP data base and the only water bodies for which they had yet to recommend numeric nutrient criteria were canals in south Florida. Rather than gathering the necessary data and conducting the appropriate scientific analysis for these waters, the EPA has proposed numeric nutrient criteria for canals in south Florida by simply applying the same principles as those used for streams and flowing waters. The EPA's own supporting information acknowledges that canals in south Florida are highly managed waterways that do not function in the same way as natural streams and flowing waters throughout the other designated regions in Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4073Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0981-1.001.008
Author Name: Melchiori R. Organization: Becker Holding Corporation To summarize, we feel that there has not been nearly enough data collection, scientific analysis, and evaluation of south Florida canals to support establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for these waterways at this time. The applicability and veracity of the data used is highly questionable which results in criteria that are not realistic and cannot be expected to achieve the desired goal of achieving the designated uses of these waters. In general, applying criteria developed under an approach to fundamentally different waters (streams and flowing waters of northern Florida vs. canals of south Florida) ignores the very goal of the numeric nutrient criteria. The designated uses for these canals must include the functions for which they were constructed which include flood protection, irrigation, and navigation. Establishing numeric nutrient criteria for these canals based solely on aquatic life criteria and ignoring the purposes for which they were constructed is flawed science. As such, we recommend that because of the clear lack of sound scientific basis for establishment of such criteria, waterways designated as canals in south Florida be exempted and not included in the waterways for which numeric nutrient criteria are established. 

# Comment ID 0991.001.002
Author Name: Brayton P. Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc. We have a reverse osmosis water treatment plant that treats brackish ground water to the highest drinking water standards. The by-product of this process is concentrated brine. We have disposed of this by-product for more than 30 years into a salt water canal. The residents along the canal are happy to have the flushing effect which eliminated a dead end. Manatees and many other creatures live in the canal without any ill effects. 

# Comment ID 0991.001.003
Author Name: Brayton P. Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc. The proposed rule has a standard for phosphorus that is exceeded by the water already in the canal. This canal has several outfalls for storm water run-off that were installed by our county government. It is for these reasons that we ask for some common sense to prevail. The members of our association are already some of the hardest hit by the recession and unemployment. They can barely pay our existing water rates let alone a dramatic increase we would have to charge if we were forced to dispose of the brine by deep well injection. The cost of such a well is at least $6 million. The total value of our assets is only $3.4 million. 

# Comment ID 0994.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4074Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Ryan J. Organization: At the meeting, it was said that S Fla should be guided by the canal values. By the way, our pond overflows into the Caloosahatchie River. For Chlorophyll and TP our values are too high, very much so. For TN we are OK or close. So clearly Lee County numbers would need some sort of a fix. What might it be? Alternatively you could promise not to apply WQS to us now and for the future. 

# Comment ID 1005.001.008
Author Name: Heatherington K. Organization: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 4. If the Proposed freshwater numeric nutrient criteria adoption cannot be delayed, the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for streams should be applied to the South Florida Region as well, not just the canals criteria as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in South Florida. (Caloosahatchee River, Hendry Creek, Mullock Creek, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Imperial River, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River, Henderson Creek, and the Turner River just to name a few). The FL Dept. of Environmental Protection classifies those streams and rivers as fresh up to their tidal portions and therefore, the streams criteria - not the canal criteria - should apply to those fresh waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1011.001.010
Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County However, Chlorophyll-a is not a good indicator of algae growth in a canal due to the dynamics involved in a canal. Many canals in south Florida are highly managed. As an example, Lake Worth Drainage District, which has hundreds of miles of canals within central and southern Palm Beach County, has an average Chlorophyll-a concentration of approximately 36 ppb. This average value is a result of the latest readings at twelve sites scattered throughout their District. 

# Comment ID 1011.001.012
Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County 7) Many canals in south Florida are highly managed. Because of this they do not support the same type of wildlife and habitat as a natural stream would. There does not appear to be sufficient data to establish a cause/effect for water body impairment in many areas due to nutrients, especially canals. In fact, Palm Beach County geology and soil conditions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4075Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals are vastly different from other areas in the EPA South Florida Nutrient Region designation. Therefore, having the same criteria for the entire designated region is inappropriate. 

# Comment ID 1011.001.014
Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County 9) The drainage network (mentioned in item 6 above) constructed in Palm Beach County in the early 1900's was done so to offer flood protection for the residents of the County and when that system was designed many decades ago, it did not consider the functions that these proposed regulations are now taking into account. There needs to be some recognition that a drainage system of canals that was designed with one function in mind (providing drainage) cannot be revised completely in a short period of time (20 years per EPA's proposed rule) to meet an entirely different set of functions (water quality and wildlife habitat) without bankrupting the entity responsible for complying with these proposed standards. A longer time frame for compliance should be considered, such as fifty (50) years. 

# Comment ID 1024.001.004
Author Name: Fuller M. Organization: We think that -- there were some comments made about the difficulty of regulating within the canals in the South Florida. One of your previous speakers showed this photograph taken off of his dock in Cape Coral. We have serious problems. You can't effectively deal with the water quality issues in South Florida if you do not consider canals because they are such a large part of the landscape. So we're glad you're here. We know you've got a tough job, but we're all -­ we're all part of the problem, that's true, and we all want to be -- we all need to be part of the solution. We think we can get there. We think this is a critical step, and thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 1035.001.002
Author Name: Peterson E. Organization: You know, we need help, and I think our last big hope for help is the EPA. And I hate to lay this on you guys because I know you have other things you would rather be doing, but we've got to clean up this water, and we can't do it with a global approach. We can't just say all these canals because we've got freshwater streams that are being sort of taken in as canals, as part of our canal system, and we can't do that. They've got to be separate. We've got to have different nutrient standards.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4076Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1040.001.004
Author Name: Hamel R. Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association Second, the issue of the canals in South Florida, reports that we've seen from the University of Florida IFAS, which is an agency that we work with very closely on our fertilizer and materials to grow crops, they indicate to us and we can confirm that, that there's major concern for the reductions required to meet these criteria. If we have to cut back on our phosphorus in particular, it would basically reduce our production, and it would reduce our ability to produce and stay in business. So we have concerns there. 

# Comment ID 1063.001.006
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida The proposed chlorophyll a, TA, and TN canals criteria uses criteria from existing canals currently meeting their designated uses, and as such, utilizes the best available science for protecting aquatic life and human health. 

# Comment ID 1063.001.012
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Since I have additional time, I'm going to make one additional comment which has to do with the South Florida canals criteria. There are natural freshwater rivers and streams in South Florida, and they should have rivers and streams criteria. So that is something that we would suggest to strengthen the proposed criteria. And we'll also be submitting the detailed comments for the record on-line. Thank you.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4077Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1076.001.003
Author Name: McElwaine A. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida We hope you will hang tough, particularly as it relates to canals. Efforts to exempt canals effectively exempt all of South Florida because we are canals. Let me point out one little example. Were you to step out the door here and walk about a block and a half, you would be standing on a canal, occasionally known as the Caloosahatchee River. It is a canal. It has being canalled. The Saint Lucie River is a canal. Naples Bay, which is impaired virtually every cubic foot, two-thirds of its watershed is made up of canals. You cannot clean the bay if you do not clean canals, period. The -- I would add that canals are not uniform, in terms of river and stream segments. For example, I live in the Cocohatchee Estuary. The Cocohatchee begins at Lake Trafford and is somewhat free-flowing and also a mixture of ground and surface water until it reaches the Cocohatchee Canal. For a brief period there, a couple of miles, it is canalled, at which point it becomes free-flowing again, and goes out to form the estuary at Delnor-Wiggins Pass. So only a small portion of that river is canalled. So again, the idea that perhaps the whole Coco should be exempted, because it's one tenth a canal, is a little over the top from my perspective, as a resident of that watershed. We believe you do have sufficient science-based information to address the problem of canals. We -- and we strongly support your inclusion of those in any final rule because again, their exclusion will result in effectively rendering the standards meaningless in South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1079.001.003
Author Name: Stubbs J. Organization: And I would also like to point out one more concern than -- just one concern that I do have with EPA's proposed criteria. And being from Southwest Florida I'm surrounded by man-made canals, and I definitely appreciate EPA's efforts to protect those waterways because I see people fishing and swimming in them, believe it or not, every day. But I would also like you to recognize the fresh rivers and streams that we have in Southwest Florida as well. I myself have kayaked on the Gordon River, the Imperial River, and others in our area, and are well aware that even though the majority of the structures of these do have estuarine qualities, there are upper freshwater portions, and they should be not included in the canals criteria because they are freshwater systems. 

# Comment ID 1088-1.001.001
Author Name: Henry B. Organization: Broward County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4078Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals This correspondence is provided to state Broward County's opposition to the proposed rule published on January 26, 2010 pertaining to "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" While Broward County appreciates the overall intent of the EPA to protect and improve the quality of surface waters throughout the State of Florida, the County objects to the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals and the use of these proposed standards as a basis for establishing waterbody impairment. The County finds the proposed numeric nutrient criteria to be overly restrictive and not sufficiently reflective of the range of water quality found in canals that are currently supporting productive biological ccmmunities and recreational uses and disagrees with the EPA's use of Chl a as biological indicator of water quality impairment in canals. The County is also concerned that EPA's proposed standards may have the unintended consequence of encouraging broad reclassification of canals as a means of avoiding the economic impacts of the extensive waterbody impairments that would be established with implementation of the current proposed rule. This would not only defeat the intended purpose of the rule, but could possibly lead to future lowering of water quality in downgraded waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1103.001.002
Author Name: Alexander J. Organization: Alico, Inc. The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Florida concerns me on three points. On the first point, the criteria seem to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science. There's some science, but not all of it is science. For example, Table 4 of the EPA's proposed criteria sets an arbitrary maximum for phosphorus at 42 parts per billion for all canals in the DEP's South Florida region, with the exception of canals within the Everglades Protection Area, where the total phosphorus criteria of 10 parts per billion currently applies. 

# Comment ID 1135.001.009
Author Name: Naja M. Organization: Everglades Foundation Furthermore, the nutrient criteria forget the canals of the EAA should be set to protect the downstream STAs, whereby the phosphorus loading grade should not exceed 1 gram per square meter per year, and should guarantee an outflow phosphorus target of 16, 17 ppb. The proposed rule should also take into account the long-term plan of building reservoirs in the EAA for water storage. This stored water will flow through the EAA canals and will be treated in the downstream STAs. The rule must ensure that this water transfer can occur without being considered a violation. 

# Comment ID 1176.001.003
Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Johnson Engineering, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4079Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Three things I would like to ask you to take a -- or four things I would like you to take a look at, as you're looking through the rule. A couple of the earlier speakers spoke about how in -- south of here, in parts of Lee County and Collier County, there's some natural streams that today fall within the south area, which is basically canals. And they are natural streams, and I think they need a relook at. Here in Lee County there's a couple of major areas that are canals that fall in the Caloosahatchee and may need to be looked at a little bit differently. So those are two technical areas in streams and canals, that the areas kind of intertwined. There's some natural, some man-made, and I think a little more definition there is more warranted. 

# Comment ID 1189.001.004
Author Name: Hushon J. Organization: One of the other things is that the canals in Southwest Florida are both -- they're saline below the weir and fresh water above the weir, and you need to take that into account as well. 

# Comment ID 1189.001.009
Author Name: Hushon J. Organization: Measures need to be taken to control nutrients and other pollutants in the drainage canals that crisscross Southwest Florida. These canals drop pollutants into the estuaries and cause subsequent problems there. Conservancy of Southwest Florida has done a lot of work and monitoring of the water in Naples Bay, and it does receive feed from canals, some of which contains pollutants. So we have real concerns with how these pollutants -- if you drive along the canals or boat along the canals, you see they are not healthy, and this is only going into our waters, and it's going into our estuaries from there directly -- they directly feed. 

# Comment ID 1189.001.010
Author Name: Hushon J. Organization: Recent efforts in Southwest Florida have also demonstrating the advantages of spreading some of the canal water out over natural lands, to have them serve as trickling filters, just as the river grass did for so many years. Several filter marshes have been built recently, and they should be encouraged and rewarded. This is something -- in the best management practices section, one the ways of reaching some of your goals to trickle-marsh some of the contaminated water. It does get rid of both pesticides and nutrients.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4080Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1191.001.006
Author Name: Cravens M. Organization: Mangrove Action Group However, a major concern in these provisions in the proposed rules may be viewed as loopholes, driving a focused strategy by special interests to mask the water quality problems of coastal canal waterfront developments and avoid or circumvent water quality standards being proposed by the EPA for numeric standards for coastal canals. Special interests, including coastal counties and municipalities, may seek provisions for flexibility of meeting water quality targets of impaired estuaries that allows a phased process for restoration and/or site-specific alternatives as a loophole they could use to avoid meeting the EPA-proposed water standards for canals that are adjacent and, in many instances, connect to Florida's few remaining natural vegetated estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1191.001.008
Author Name: Cravens M. Organization: Mangrove Action Group In Collier County we already are faced with such a strategy, whereby Collier County is improperly attempting to proclaim a highly valued and productive mangrove and sea grass estuary known as the Clam Bay Conservation and Natural Resource Protection Area as impaired, in concert with masquerading an adjacent canal system of Moorings Bay, Doctors Pass seawall canals, to be a part of that Clam Bay estuary, in order to avoid managing the canals in a way that would meet the water quality standards for numerics proposed by EPA for those canals. 

# Comment ID 1191.001.009
Author Name: Cravens M. Organization: Mangrove Action Group The way to prevent this situation of coastal canal waterfront developments from gaming whatever numeric standards that will apply to them is to apply a clear definition of canal systems is distinctly different from that of natural estuaries. Coastal developments that eliminated natural shoreline vegetation and replaced it with hardscape seawalls, should no longer be considered to be estuaries and should be recategorized as canal system. They should not be considered Class II estuarine waters, and instead be recognized as Class III waters, to reflect their primary use of artificial canals for navigation. Such developments should be required to conform to numeric standards specifically for canals that EPA is proposing, and still be required for those canals to meet water quality standards that remain fishable, swimmable waterways. 

# Comment ID 1191.001.011

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4081Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Cravens M. Organization: Mangrove Action Group Provisions for what is required and declaration of impaired status for natural estuaries that allows a restoration process or site-specific alternatives must prohibit adjacent or connected canal waterways from employing natural estuary provisions in order to avoid or circumvent the numeric standards for those areas. 

# Comment ID 1197.001.007
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida The proposed chlorophyll a, T.N. and T.P. canals criteria utilizes criteria from existing canals currently meeting their designated uses. And I wanted to make it clear that these are obviously not pristine water bodies, which really don't exist in Florida anymore. And as such, the canals criteria utilizes the best available science for protecting aquatic life and human health. In fact, the criteria proposed by E.P.A. overall closely parallels that proposed by D.E.P. itself in 2008 with very little exception. 

# Comment ID 1203.001.005
Author Name: Crooks A. Organization: This brings me to the canal criteria. Numeric criteria for canals are absolutely essential. Unlike many who claim that canals are devoid of aquatic life, my experience has been to the contrary. My family home was on a canal, and every day my dad went out fishing in those canals. Because we had both freshwater and saltwater canals in the area, he speaks of catching and consuming redfish, snook, bass, perch, and crab. My nephew learned to fish on the canals. The quality of water in canals are not only important for protecting our downstream beaches and estuaries, but for protecting our quality of life, our ability to recreate in the canals, and for the sake of the fish and wildlife that utilize canals. We have seen bald eagle, osprey, manatee, water foul birds, including protected herons and egrets.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4082Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1219.001.007
Author Name: Taylor J. Organization: Five, nutrients in all canals leading to the state's waters should be strictly regulated by this proposal, most especially agricultural canals in southern Florida. 

# Comment ID 1291-1.001.001
Author Name: Brown A. Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration The City of Pompano Beach is opposed to the fast paced approach to developing the nutrient numeric criteria for waterbodies. These scientifically developed criteria need to be carefully reviewed and evaluated before broad implementation across such diverse systems. We object to classification of canals as streams due to the weak relationship between cause and effect for these man-made waterbodies, which were never intended to be biological systems. The artificial systems need to be treated separately from the natural lakes and streams. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.001
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League I am writing on behalf of the Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. ("FSCL") and its grower and processor members to provide additional comment on EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for the State of Florida, noticed in the Regulatory Docket referenced above. Members of the FSCL are engaged in agricultural activities in Florida in the area known as Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") which is the area of South Florida defined by the perimeter levees surrounding that area. These levees are part of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project") of the US Army Corps of Engineers, operated and maintained jointly with the South Florida Water Management District as local sponsor. The members of FSCL depend on the C&SF Project canals within the EAA for flood control and irrigation supplies and the conveyance of farm runoff for further treatment in Stormwater Treatment Areas ("STAs") prior to conveyance to natural areas or for further use meeting urban water needs. All members of FSCL will be affected substantially by the adoption of the proposed criteria and may be required directly or indirectly to meet additional regulatory requirements if the proposed criteria are adopted by EPA. The FSCL adopts by reference the comments submitted by the United States Sugar Corporation, Inc., Florida Crystals, Inc. and the EAA Environmental Protection District, funded in part by FSCL members, together with supporting

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4083Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals documents filed jointly as the "Joint Submittal". The following summarizes our concerns as more fully documented and presented by these entities: 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.006
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 5. EPA has ignored available information that aquatic life responses to nutrients in canals are much different than responses to nutrients in natural streams. The Class III canals in the EAA are all used for water management, are routinely dredged and otherwise maintained for efficient conveyance and do not provide habitat that will sustain nutrient sensitive species. Achievement of the proposed criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus will not result in the propagation of aquatic life found in natural streams. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.007
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 6. The South Florida Water Management District and EPA have previously recognized that much higher concentrations of phosphorus in the range of 100 ppb are adequate to ensure the most efficient performance of the downstream Stormwater Treament Areas. Achievement of the proposed phosphorus criteria will not improve the STA performance below what will be achieved at an input concentration of 100 ppb of phosphorus. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.010
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The criteria for modified/channelized streams should not be the same as that of in-tact streams. The hydrology of modified streams is so drastically different as to warrant alternative nutrient criteria. As stated in the EPA nutrient criteria external peer review document: "the variance in nutrient concentrations in a water body is heavily influenced by its unique morphology and hydrology (anonymous author, 2009)". This ideal is particularly relevant when setting nutrient standards in altered streams. In the early 1900's numerous canals were constructed throughout Polk County. In some cases, these canals were the result of realigning and deepening existing waterways. However, in many situations these canals were created by connecting otherwise isolated wetland areas. Examples include the headwaters of Peace Creek Canal, Saddle Creek, Itchepackesassa Creek and Gator Creek. It is unrealistic to expect a man-made waterway to meet the same criteria as a natural stream.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4084Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.077
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.078
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.082
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • No supporting evidence is provided to indicate that the targets proposed are necessary to protect the designated use of the canals. No clear criteria are identified as protective of designated uses nor is one proposed which understands the unique nature of canal systems. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.083
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • A criterion for total nitrogen is proposed, but a substantial portion of the south Florida canals are phosphorus limited. Water bodies should be managed to control the limiting nutrient where a limiting nutrient has been identified. Reductions to the loadings of the non-limiting nutrient will not improve the health of the water body, and will only force the expenditure of scarce resources for no benefit. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.084

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4085Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • No method is provided for identifying which numeric criteria are applicable for canals that span different ecoregions, (e.g., what criteria would apply for a canal that is partially within the Peninsula and partially in the South Region?). 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.085
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • Some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.146
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County South Florida Canals (40 FR Part 131 Section III.E) Background There are thousands of miles of canals in Florida, particularly in the southeastern part of the State. Canals are artificial waterways that are either the result of modifications to existing rivers or streams, or waters that have been created for various purposes, including drainage and stormwater management, irrigation, navigation, recreation, and aesthetics. Ecosystems are altered and ecological functions are reduced in rivers and streams that are modified into canals. Also, newly created canals may have a tendency to fill with aquatic plants, especially nuisance invasive species. Canals in south Florida vary greatly in size and depth. They can be anywhere from a few feet wide and a few feet deep to hundreds of feet wide and as deep as 30 to 35 feet (EPA, 2010b, page 138). Deeper canals can extend below the soil horizons and breach the surficial aquifer (SFWMD, 1997). The resultant surface water-groundwater interaction can complicate efforts to manage canal water quality, as discussed below. South Florida canals vary in their hydrology and behavior due to their size, function, and level of management. Canals with slow water flow, especially during the dry season, have little flushing and long residence times. In contrast, during the wet season, these same canals can quickly move large volumes of water. South Florida canals convey water either through gravity flow, or with the use of mechanical pumps. Excess nutrients in canals, in combination with poor water circulation and extended residence times can lead to decreased levels of dissolved oxygen (DO), eutrophication, and adverse impacts on aquatic life such as fish and benthos. The accumulation of decaying organic matter on the canal bottom can also adversely affect healthy aquatic ecosystems by taking up DO from the water column. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.148

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4086Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Even if setting nutrient concentration targets for canals were appropriate, the realization of that goal is not simple. The response of receiving waters like canals to pollutant loading is relatively rapid, but the pollutant sources may be difficult to identify. Canal pollution originates from many sources that cannot easily be traced from a discharge point because of the interconnected network of the regional hydrology. To limit pollutant concentrations in canals it will be necessary to manage loadings throughout the entire hydrologic system. Also, the limits of contributing land areas in the region are frequently not governed by topography, but by either an artificial conveyance system and/or pumping regime. This, in addition to potential groundwater inputs to canal waters, makes tracking pollutant sources and implementation challenging. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.150
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Finally, there is no discussion of the impacts of canals that are located on tribal lands. This rule does not apply to waters for which the Miccosukee or Seminole Tribe has obtained Treatment as a State for Section 303 of the CWA, pursuant to Section 518 of the CWA. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals noton tribal lands. Figure 4-5 in Chapter 4 of the TSD shows canals located on tribal land. Specifically, canals L-28 and L28 Interceptor (not labeled on Figure 4-5) cross Miccosukee land south of Lake Okeechobee and flow into the Everglades south of I-75. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.162
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Setting nutrient standards, with chlorophyll a as the screening criterion, to abate eutrophication in surface water bodies is a standard practice and appears to be generally appropriate for canals. However, the unique nature of canals needs to be considered in setting the endpoints. Additionally, the biota or habitat that is to be protected is not specifically stated in the reviewed documents. With the exception of a discussion of the Everglades Protection Area, there is no discussion of downstream protection. In general, using a downstream protection approach for management of all canals in south Florida, not just those in the EAA, makes the most sense when dealing these highly managed flood conveyance systems. The canals themselves were never intended to provide, nor do they provide, high quality aquatic life habitat. It is silly and wasteful to manage them as if they do. We would suggest, therefore, that the approach to canal management throughout south Florida focus on maintaining water quality within canals that will be protective of downstream waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4087Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.163
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County As noted above, canals are man-made or altered water conveyances that have had any historical ecological functions reduced or removed. Many canals were excavated from uplands and have no connection to surrounding hydrological or habitat features. Modified historical conveyances also have features such as floodplains, sinuosity, adjacent wetlands, shallows, and other ecologically beneficial features removed. Also, many canals breach the surficial aquifer and facilitate surface water - groundwater interaction. Canals generally have steep side slopes and are maintained to optimize water movement. Water movement in many canals is via control structure or mechanical pump only, and pump operation is very seasonal. Also, unlike a natural stream or river, water flowing through a canal is not necessarily local runoff. The interconnected network of canals in south Florida requires that a regional approach to improving and maintaining water quality be taken, as opposed to examining individual WBIDs. The minimal ability of most canals to assimilate pollutant loadings, and the remote pollutant loading that impacts many canals, makes meeting any water quality standard challenging. Considerations should be given to physical factors, canal purpose and use, seasonality, the variety of inputs, and regional hydrology in implementing water quality standards for canals. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a canal to have been excavated below the soil horizon and into the shallow (surficial) aquifer. When the water table adjacent to the canal is higher than the canal water level, then water flows from the aquifer into the canal, and can greatly affect water quality (USGS, 2009). Elevated nutrients can result in higher chlorophyll a values, and groundwater dissolved oxygen levels are very low. Thus, to not take into account potential groundwater effects reduces the value of any load reduction allocation. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.005
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Canals

• Proposed criteria apply only to canals in south Florida. Therefore, the proposed regionally-specific stream criteria would apply to canals in other parts of the state. This is not appropriate since the water quality data used to develop these stream criteria did not include any data from canals in those regions. Data from canals in central and north Florida should be included in the analysis and regionally-specific criteria should be developed for canals throughout the state. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.010
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners South Florida Canals

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4088Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Background There are thousands of miles of canals in Florida, particularly in the southeastern part of the State. Canals are artificial waterways that are either the result of modifications to existing rivers or streams, or waters that have been created for various purposes, including drainage and stormwater management, irrigation, navigation, recreation, and aesthetics. Ecosystems are altered and ecological functions are reduced in rivers and streams that are modified into canals. Also, newly created canals may have a tendency to fill with aquatic plants, especially nuisance invasive species. Canals in south Florida vary greatly in size and depth. They can be anywhere from a few feet wide and a few feet deep to hundreds of feet wide and as deep as 30 to 35 feet (EPA, 2010b, page 138). Deeper canals can extend below the soil horizons and breach the surficial aquifer (SFWMD, 1997). The resultant surface water-groundwater interaction can complicate efforts to manage canal water quality, as discussed below. South Florida canals vary in their hydrology and behavior due to their size, function, and level of management. Canals with slow water flow, especially during the dry season, have little flushing and long residence times. In contrast, during the wet season, these same canals can quickly move large volumes of water. South Florida canals convey water either through gravity flow, or with the use of mechanical pumps. Excess nutrients in canals, in combination with poor water circulation and extended residence times can lead to decreased levels of dissolved oxygen (DO), eutrophication, and adverse impacts on aquatic life such as fish and benthos. The accumulation of decaying organic matter on the canal bottom can also adversely affect healthy aquatic ecosystems by taking up DO from the water column. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.054
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

• Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.055
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

• Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4089Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.057
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

• Some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.059
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Even if setting nutrient concentration targets for canals were appropriate, the realization of that goal is not simple. Pollutant loading to receiving waters like canals can change very rapidly, making identification of pollutant sources difficult. Canal pollution originates from many sources that cannot easily be traced from a discharge point because of the interconnected network of the regional hydrology. To limit pollutant concentrations in canals it will be necessary to manage loadings throughout the entire hydrologic system. Also, the limits of contributing land areas in the region are frequently not based on topography, but on either an artificial conveyance system, or governed by pumping. This, in addition to potential groundwater inputs to canal waters, makes tracking pollutant sources and implementation challenging. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.061
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Finally, there is no discussion of the impacts of canals that are located on tribal lands. This rule does not apply to waters for which the Miccosukee or Seminole Tribe has obtained Treatment as a State for Section 303 of the CWA, pursuant to Section 518 of the CWA. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals noton tribal lands. Figure 4-5 in Chapter 4 of the TSD shows canals located on tribal land. Specifically, canals L-28 and L28 Interceptor (not labeled on Figure 4-5) cross Miccosukee land south of Lake Okeechobee and flow into the Everglades south of I-75. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.073
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4090Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Setting nutrient and chlorophyll a standards to abate eutrophication in surface water bodies is a standard practice and appears to be generally appropriate for canals. However, the unique nature of canals needs to be considered in setting the endpoints. Additionally, the biota or habitat that is to be protected is not specifically stated in the reviewed documents. With the exception of a discussion of the Everglades Protection Area, there is no discussion of downstream protection. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.074
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners As noted above, canals are man-made or altered water conveyances that have had any historical ecological functions reduced or removed. Many canals were excavated from uplands and have no connection to surrounding hydrological or habitat features. Modified historical conveyances also have features such as floodplains, sinuosity, adjacent wetlands, shallows, and other ecologically beneficial features removed. Also, many canals breach the surficial aquifer and facilitate surface water - groundwater interaction. Canals generally have steep side slopes and are maintained to optimize water movement. Water movement in many canals is via control structure or mechanical pump only, and pump operation is very seasonal. Also, unlike a natural stream or river, water flowing through a canal is not necessarily local runoff. The interconnected network of canals in south Florida requires that a regional approach to improving and maintaining water quality be taken, as opposed to examining individual WBIDs. The minimal ability of most canals to assimilate pollutant loadings, and the remote pollutant loading that impacts many canals, makes meeting any water quality standard challenging. Considerations should be given to physical factors, canal purpose and use, seasonality, the variety of inputs, and regional hydrology in implementing water quality standards for canals. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a canal to have been excavated below the soil horizon and into the shallow (surficial) aquifer. When the water table adjacent to the canal is higher than the canal water level, then water flows from the aquifer into the canal, and can greatly affect water quality (USGS, 2009). Elevated nutrients can result in higher chlorophyll a values, and groundwater dissolved oxygen levels are very low. Thus, to not take into account potential groundwater effects reduces the value of any load reduction allocation. 

# Comment ID 1357-1.001.002
Author Name: Schwartzberg L. Organization: South Broward Drainage District Specifically, none of the canals in this District are natural water bodies. They were not dug to provide habitat. As a matter of fact, none of the agencies that regulate wetlands will allow the construction of canals to count as wetland

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4091Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals mitigation. The side slopes of these canals range from 2H:1V to vertical. Any habitat benefit is incidental to the intended purpose of these canals. The only purpose these canals serve is to collect urban and agricultural runoff and to convey that runoff to a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regional canal. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.007
Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition Finally, with respect to canals, EPA has no record that canals are not meeting their designated uses. EPA's data do not indicate that canals have any nutrient impairment problems. EPA should not have determined that it was necessary to set canal nutrient standards. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.009
Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida Further, the EPA is proposing that canals to be treated as flowing waters and the numeric standards established for the canals will be based on reference sites that are natural water bodies. In some cases, highly managed canals do not support the same types of habitat and wildlife that natural water bodies would. Canals may be constructed for a specific purpose that is not associated with recreation (such as flood control, irrigation, and conveyance). Additionally, certain canals have been modified for water quality treatment and serve as the only viable means of pollutant load reduction and should be given due consideration for this function. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.001
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works General Comments The EPA document focuses on limiting nutrients to prevent algae blooms, but does not deal with the issue of bacteria at all. Many South Florida canals are impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. Some of these bacteria enter streams by underground pipes, whether from failing septic systems, storm drains contaminated by illegal dumping, or illegal sanitary sewer connections. Since the pipes are underground and not exposed to sunlight, this nutrient-rich environment will favor the growth of bacteria as opposed to photosynthetic organisms which produce chlorophyll a. Often, portions of the canals are culverted and not exposed to sunlight. Some of the management practices to limit algae (reducing sunlight available for photosynthesis) p.74 increase bacterial abundance (less disinfection by UV). Consider bacteriological water quality as another response to nutrient pollution in addition to chlorophyll a and algae

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4092Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals blooms. Consider using dissolved oxygen normalized for temperature (i.e., DO as a percent of saturation) and canal depth as a response variable. BOD is another possible response variable. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.008
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works EPA does not appear to consider the existence of marine and estuarine canals such as the Miami River, Miami Canal, Seybold Canal, and others in South Florida, as Section E is entitled Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals. Change the title of this Section to "Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Fresh Water Canals. p.37 ‘"canal" means a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides normally above water.' Canals may be altered natural waterways, but not necessarily trenches. Document appears to assume that all downstream loading to estuaries is from freshwater and not to consider downstream loading to estuaries from flowing waters that are estuaries. Will these be dealt with in the rule to be promulgated in 2011? Will EPA create downstream protective values for these flowing estuaries? 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.010
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) D. Reliance on River and Streams Methodology for Canals is Arbitrary and Capricious EPA derived the criteria for south Florida canals using the same methodology used for natural streams, while acknowledging that the majority of canals in the EAA are not natural water bodies, but man-made conveyances used for a variety of purposes. As such, south Florida and EAA canals cannot be assessed using the same criteria as used for natural streams. It is well documented that the canals in south Florida and the EAA are subject to groundwater exchange, seasonal fluctuations in water levels and flow, and are highly manipulated with respect to discharge rates throughout the year. Canals may, at times, have no flow and at other times, very high flows. These significant differences in the rate and elevation of water in south Florida canals is never discussed or seemingly considered by EPA. Although EPA acknowledges that changes such as water flow can affect nutrients, it fails to incorporate this factor. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.022
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4093Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Because of the physical nature of canals, their hydrology, aquatic vegetation, and these effects on chemical makeup of a canal, the aquatic life in a canal will not be the same as that of a natural flowing water body. Biological responses to nutrients in canals are very different than in natural water bodies, with great variation among canals. The biological health of a canal and its response to nutrients is highly dependent on its physical and hydrological characteristics, coupled with its water management activities. These factors alone distinguish canals from streams. EPA's use of the stream methodology and stream biological metrics to assess canals in the face of these obvious and well known differences is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, any numeric criteria set for canals must consider these fundamental differences between a canal and a natural water body and develop a methodology that is scientifically defensible and appropriate for canals. EPA's current approach is neither. 

# Comment ID 1432-1.001.006
Author Name: Bell D. Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District Factors which must be taken into consideration prior to implementation of the proposed rule which should be significantly modified include but are not limited to the following:
1. Canals and lakes in South Florida are not naturally flowing such as rivers or streams in North Florida and need a storm event to create flowage.
2. Canals do not respond to nutrients in the same manner as naturally flowing streams.
3. Canals in South Florida are generally constructed for the purpose of conveying water for flood control purposes.
4. The primary purpose of water management in South Florida is to protect property from stormwater flooding.
5. Canals in South Florida should be treated a distinct type of water body.
6. The nutrient criteria standards need to be practical, and realistically and scientifically attainable with minimal cost. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.030
Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T27 III E( I) Regarding the proposed criteria tor canals in South Florida, Highlands County includes surface waters that could be classified in a manner similar to those canals, though they are not presently defined as such in the rule. The proposed criteria for nutrients in these canals should reflect conditions existing in the pre-development drainage system

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4094Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals which they replaced, or at the very least, reflect that of other flowing streams on the peninsula. The HSWCD suggests that nutrient conditions in a shallow wetland system, dominated by macrophytes, might best represent pre-development conditions and that the nutrient levels in such systems are higher than those in the proposed rule. Additionally, inclusion of a chlorophyll-a term is unnecessary, but if it is included, the criteria should be as much as five or ten times that value provided in the proposed regulation. {p. 4212, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.003
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts I. Canals and Regionalization A canal is an artificial waterbody created wholly by human activity. Canals have high importance in providing flood protection; providing additional water flow for groundwater; water supply; prevention of salt water intrusion; and well water protection; however, they are not natural systems and should not be treated as such. Canals are modified, highly managed systems that purposefully have limited to no ecological habitat associated with them. Their flows are not based on natural hydrological regimes; instead, their flows are based on the operation of manmade structures in response to rainfall events. Consequently, canals are not biological, natural systems. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.004
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts EPA has on one hand acknowledged the unique character of canals and that they are not natural systems by developing numeric criteria specific to South Florida canals. However, on the other hand, EPA is ignoring this acknowledgement by lumping all canals north of the South Florida region with natural streams and thus applying the criteria developed for natural systems. Simply stated, a canal is a canal regardless of its location; they all serve the same function regardless of where they are in State. Therefore, it is only appropriate that water quality criteria be developed specifically for canals statewide and not just within South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.006
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts II. The Proposed Criteria Do Not Recognize In-Stream Biological Conditions EPA's development of in-stream numeric nutrient criteria is oriented toward and has the expectation of protecting

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4095Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals natural ecological communities. As stated earlier, canals are artificial systems that are highly maintained. Maintenance of these systems includes purposefully limiting habitat to insure efficient operations of the canals, which is namely to move water. Therefore, the expected "natural community" in a canal is vastly different from what would be expected in naturally flowing water. EPA's proposed rule does not provide any supporting data or information detailing the ecological community within canals that the proposed criteria is designed to protect. If EPA is unsure what comprises the ecological community within canals, how can EPA set criteria that is protective of what is not know? This is critical flaw in EPA's development of criteria for canals; especially for those canals located outside the South Florida region whereby the controlling criteria was based on the protection of natural systems with known natural habitat conditions.


# Comment ID 1464-2.001.006
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 4. The proposed criteria for south Florida canals U.S. EPA (2010a, pp. 4183, 4223) defines a canal as "a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides normally above water." There are thousands of miles of freshwater, brackish, and marine canals in Florida, especially in the southern part of the state (U.S. EPA 2010a). These proposed nutrient criteria are to protect designated uses of Class III canals in FDEP's South Florida bioregion. The proposed criteria were described (U.S. EPA 2010a, p.4211) as having been based on nutrient and chlorophyll a data from more than 500 sites, and they include chlorophyll a at 4 ug/L, TP at 42 ug/L, and TN at 1,600 ug/L. These values are expressed as annual geometric means not to be exceeded more than once in a three-year period; in addition, the long-term average of annual geometric mean values should not exceed the criteria. The basis (U.S. EPA 2010a, p.4212) is the 75th percentiles of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a distributions for all canals included under the criteria. Clearly, such protective criteria are needed, considering that FDEP (2010b, p.12) reported that only ~31% of the canals in southern Florida presently could meet the proposed U.S. EPA (2010a) chlorophyll a criterion (basis: analysis of network data; n = 196 samples; the 95% confidence bounds were 23.0-38.7 ug chlorophyll a/L). These data indicate that many canals in southern Florida have excessive growth of suspended algae. Considering the extensive number of miles of canals in south Florida and the present status of these waters (FDEP2010b, p.12), U.S. EPA should be commended for developing criteria to protect these waters from nutrient overenrichment. U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4212) has proposed chlorophyll a, TN, and TP criteria for these canals, based on protecting their designated recreational uses. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.011
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4096Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals The TP, TN, and chlorophyll a criteria should be applied independently - As for lakes and streams (see above), these criteria should each "stand alone" to protect canals in south Florida: If one of the three parameters is exceeded, then the system should be characterized as in violation of the nutrient water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.012
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. In future efforts to strengthen these criteria, an inorganic nitrogen criterion is also needed for canals - U.S. EPA(2010a,b) is in the process of adopting nutrient criteria to protect downstream estuarine waters from nutrient overenrichment. Given the fact that south Florida has thousands of miles of canals that directly or indirectly drain into estuaries, an inorganic N criterion will be needed for canals to protect sensitive nearshore receiving waters. South Florida waters are highly impacted by nutrient over-enrichment from thousands of septic tanks, municipal sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, atmospheric deposition, and other pollution sources, much of which is transported out to sensitive nearshore systems from canals (e.g. Lapointe et al. 1990, Lapointe and Clark 1992, Lapointe and Matzie 1996, Lapointe et al. 2004, SFWMD 2010). Downstream estuaries and nearshore waters have been shown to be sensitive to nutrient over-enrichment (National Research Council 2002), especially inorganic N (see above references by Lapointe, Tomasko, and coworkers; also see Glibert et al. 2004). Nutrient concentrations as low as 100-200 ug/L of inorganic N and/or inorganic P have been shown to stimulate nuisance and noxious estuarine algal blooms (Rudek et al. 1991; Mallin et al. 1999, 2004a,b). An inorganic N criterion is needed for Class III canals in south Florida to ensure adequate protection of downstream estuarine and nearshore waters from noxious blooms. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.013
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Clarification should be added about Class I canals in south Florida - U.S. EPA (2010a) has addressed nutrient criteria for Class I and Class III waters with exception of canals, for which only Class III waters were mentioned by U.S. EPA (2010a, pp. 4183, 4212) as being covered under the proposed criteria. It would be helpful for U.S. EPA to add clarification about Class I canals in south Florida, such as the M canal in Palm Beach County, Florida; Southeast District 1999). If Class I canals are not to be included for protection under these proposed criteria, then they should be considered for protection from nutrient pollution in future efforts to strengthen the criteria. 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.016
Author Name: Herz W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4097Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Finally, with respect to canals, EPA has no record that canals are not meeting their designated uses. EPA's data do not indicate that canals have any nutrient impairment problems. EPA should not have determined that it was necessary to set canal nutrient standards. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.012
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute F. Standards for Southern Canals. Canals are not "natural" systems. They are man-made structures for balancing water flows between regions. Water flow may be rapid or slow, depending upon rainfall and they tend to fill up with rooted plants. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4211-12. Such conditions tend to reduce algal growth due to shading. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.030
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Finally, with respect to canals, EPA has no record that canals are not meeting their designated uses. In fact, the data show that average chlorophyll a levels in canals would not exceed 10 ug/l, which generally is considered an appropriate level. Moreover, these data do not indicate that canals have any nutrient impairment problems. Mesotrophic levels are met in all of these waters on an individual year basis and oligotrphic levels are met on a long term average basis. EPA has concluded that both of these levels are protective of aquatic life elsewhere in the State. Given this information, EPA should not have determined that it was necessary to set canal nutrient standards or that actions by Florida were insufficient to protect such waters. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.075
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 5. Conclusions regarding EPA's proposed criterion for southern canals. EPA has presented no information that would suggest that its proposed criterion for southern canals is necessary to protect their designated uses, contravening 40 C.F.R. 131.2. Accordingly, EPA should withdraw its proposed criterion and allow Florida to continue to address water quality in the southern canals consistent with the Everglades Forever Act, Florida Statutes, 373.4592.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4098Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1474-2.001.007
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment on FOIA Item #12 The request asked: "On page 141 of the proposed standards, EPA determines that a 4 ug/L chl-a criteria should be established for South Florida canals. Please provide all records identifying which use this chl-a value is necessary to protect and whether instream values greater than 4 ug/l chl-a are likely to impair such use." Response: EPA identified its technical support document as the only document that explains what the 4 ug/l chl-a criteria is intended to protect. Comment: Despite thoroughly reviewing this document, TFI is unable to find the "protected use" purpose behind the 4 ug/l chl-a limit. Please identify which ‘use' this limit is intended to protect and why values above this limit will not protect the ‘use'. 

# Comment ID 1475-1.001.003
Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District Furthermore, please justify why canals are defined as streams in the Peninsula Nutrient Waterhsed? Clearly the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River is a stream, but the C-18 canal is in fact a canal and functions like a canal (not a stream). 

# Comment ID 1476-1.001.004
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District The attached comments demonstrate that the current state of the science, particularly scientific data for canals, requires a realistic timeframe for development rather than the timelines currently proposed. Specifically for canals, the District requests that EPA defer numeric criteria for Florida's canal systems until such time that defensible criteria for downstream water bodies are established. Policy decisions must address classification of these heavily impacted, highly managed conveyance systems so that protection for their designated uses of flood control and water supply is achieved while also balancing potential impacts downstream.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4099Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1476-2.001.020
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District C. Imbalances in Flora and Fauna Cannot be Used as a Basis for Determining Impairment in Canals Maintained for Conveyance Purposes In order to function as conveyance systems, canals must be maintained by removing or limiting vegetation, creating immediate imbalances in canal flora and potentially fauna. The congressional authority for the Central and Southern Florida Project, which upgraded and expanded South Florida canals, specifies their primary uses as flood control and water supply, including environmental supply for the Water Conservation Areas and other natural systems. The designated uses derived under the Clean Water Act for maintenance of healthy, well balanced flora and fauna were not considered in this legislated intent. To keep their conveyance capacity and protect public safely, canals and their banks must be maintained open and free of obstructive vegetation, natural habitat, through mechanical harvesting or the use of herbicides. The FDEP TAC has discussed the extreme challenge of determining biological 'normalcy' under such circumstances and therefore, has noted on several occasions that it is extremely problematic to determine a rational basis upon which to develop numeric nutrient criteria in these systems. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.023
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

• There is no means provided by USEPA to deal with any sporadic stratification in canals. There is little doubt that deeper primary canals have the potential to stratify thermally during periods with no flow. However, all samples are taken at 0.5 m near the surface. During stratification, surface values can be reduced temporarily and during subsequent mixing with flow, surface values will be elevated. This process could add greatly to data variance and could contribute to future exceedances in some canals whether the reference canals representative of stratification patterns of canals as a whole! USEPA does not indicate one way or the other. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.026
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District G. Proper Justification Is Not Provided for Separate NNC for South Florida Canals, While Canals in More Northern locations Are Classified as ‘Streams'

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4100Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

There is no technical basis for setting different NNC for canals in the Everglades Nutrient Watershed (South Florida canals) and canals in the Peninsula Nutrient Watershed that use the NNC for "streams" (i.e., canals in all nutrient watersheds should be classified as canals). In fact, USEPA excluded data from Peninsula canals in the development of the NNC for the nutrient watershed (Chapter 2: Methodology for Deriving USEPAs Proposed Criteria for Streams, page 2-34). This would appear to mean USEPA appreciates the many different characteristics that exist between canals and natural streams. For example, there are 11 significant canals in the Lower Kissimmee and Lake Istokpoga watershed (e.g., C38, C40 and C41) and 4 major canals along the Upper East Coast (C44, C23, 24, &25). In fact, these canals in the Peninsula Bioregion are typical, large artificial conveyances. Some canals in the Lake Okeechobee watershed have segments that are somewhat natural and others that are fully engineered. Many canals in South Florida were built in part along gradients provided by natural steams and some drain into former streams. Under such conditions, how does USEPA propose differentiation between a canal and stream, and what guidance will be provided on deciding between which instream criterion applies along a single canal? What is a stream and what is a canal, and how do canals in the north differ from canals farther south? Some rationale should be provided by USEPA for deciding which designation applies within and between regions. This disparity between streams and canals has significant impacts. Canals in the Peninsula Region have no Chla criterion at all, according to USEPA, but they do have a TP NNC more than 2.5 times the 42 ppb requirement farther south. Based on land use, location and design, canals are clearly more prone to higher baseline nutrient levels, and if anything, their NNCs should be less stringent than those of more natural streams. Some canals north of the EAA and some canals south of the EAA discharge directly to tide. What justification does USEPA have for the large difference in the NNC north versus south, both discharging into nitrogen limited marine systems? 

# Comment ID 1479-1.001.004
Author Name: Reynolds J. Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Appropriate nutrient standards for adjacent canals are an important wellfield protection criteria to assure we can maintain safe drinking water for all of Monroe County. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.031
Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III E(1) Regarding the proposed criteria for canals in South Florida, Highlands County includes surface waters that could be classified in a manner similar to those canals, though they are not presently defined as such in the rule. The proposed criteria for nutrients in these canals should reflect conditions existing in the pre-development drainage system

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4101Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals which they replaced, or at the very least, reflect that of other flowing streams on the peninsula. Highlands Countysuggests that nutrient conditions in a shallow wetland system, dominated by macrophytes, might best represent predevelopment conditions and that the nutrient levels in such systems are higher than those in the proposed rule. Additionally, inclusion of a chlorophyll-a term is unnecessary, but if it is included, the criteria should be as much as five or ten times that value provided in the proposed regulation. {p. 4212, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.009
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida D South Florida Canals Criteria South Florida's wetlands, streams, rivers, and estuaries are highly impacted by the nutrient over-enrichment from agricultural runoff, stormwater and wastewater transmitted to them via canals [7] Short of including natural rivers and streams within the South Florida Canal Criteria, the Conservancy believes that EPA's proposed standards for canals are based on the sound science - having reviewed over 1,900,000 water samples from 3,400 sites, and are mostly protective of downstream water quality. Though canals in South Florida were originally designed for stormwater conveyance and flood control, South Florida's canal systems provide habitat for native flora and fauna alike. Canals, although man-made, may constitute essential habitat for many species of Florida fish and wildlife. Therefore, maintaining swimmable/fishable water quality in canals by utilizing numeric nutrient criteria is incredibly important. In South Florida, in particular, canal habitats are important, especially for some imperiled species. Alligators and crocodiles are known to nest on canal berms. Also, canals can act as deep-water refugia for adults [8]. Threatened American crocodile "nursery habitat are defined as areas that are protected from wind and wave action and have a low to intermediate salinity regime, abundant food, and places to hide from predators. In Florida, estuarine creeks, natural and manmade ponds, and canals meet these habitat requirements. On North Key Largo and at Turkey Point, the creation of canals not only unwittingly created nesting habitat, but also created a productive aquatic environment as evidenced by the growth rates of crocodiles and personal observation of abundant prey items at the two locations [9]." Canals also provide warm water refugia for manatees which are critical to avoiding cold stress when temperatures dip in the winter months. Manatees have been documented to utilize canals for "feeding, resting, cavorting, mating and calving [10]." Canals and ditches are also known to support endangered wood stork (and other listed wading bird) foraging. In some canals, such as documented in the Collier County Henderson Creek canal and Cape Coral canal systems, oyster populations have been maintained [11]. In fact, the City of Cape Coral, known for it's over 400 miles of canals, both freshwater and saltwater, canals support a wide range of fish and wildlife resources. Mullet, snook, sheepshead, mangrove snapper, largemouth bass, bluegill, catfish, shiners, mosquito fish, crabs, alligators, banded water snakes and water moccasins, manatees, mud turtles, musk turtles, Florida red-belly turtles, and snapping turtle, all are enjoyed by residents in their backyard canals [12]. Cape Coral canals have even been identified as a "hot spot" for the critically-endangered smalltooth sawfish [13].

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4102Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Nutrient criterion for canals is important because these systems are also sensitive to loading, and resulting eutrophication "by over-fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus causes a shift from mainly submerged aquatic vegetation to a dominance of duckweed. This leads to anoxic conditions, poorly diversified assemblages which are always dominated by the same small set of species [14]." In other words, an absence of numeric nutrient criteria standards to support swimmable/fishable water quality for canals can depress their species diversity and habitat quality. "Species richness of macrophytes ... is not correlated with structural qaulitv of waterbodies. It depends on [its] nutrient content," as a key factor [15]. Families of otters, schools of fish, and flocks of native ducks use these waterways and do not seem to differentiate much their use of natural areas. Most importantly, every canal in South Florida eventually drains to our rivers and streams and on into our estuaries. It is vital to maintain a healthy, well-balanced system within our canals, both for the support of aquatic life and for human health and safety. EPA recognizes that "[e]xcess nutrients in canals, in combination with poor water circulation and decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, can lead to accelerated eutrophication and adverse impacts on other forms of aquatic life such as fish and other aquatic animals" [16]. Because people recreate directly in canals, wildlife utilize them almost as they would a natural system, and because their health directly impacts downstream estuaries, it is crucial to maintain swimmable/fishable water quality within canals and maintain proper source control. [7] Lapointe, BE, JD O'Connell, and GS Garrett. 1990. Nutrient couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems, groundwaters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida Keys. Biogeochemistry 10:289-307. [8] US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, American Crocodile. P.4-505 - 4­ 528.; US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 12, 2004. Species Conservation Guidelines American Crocodile. South Florida Ecological Services Offices.: Mazzotti and Cherkiss, 2003. Status and Conservation of the American Crocodile in Florida: Recovering an Endangered Species While Restoring an Endangered Ecosystem. University of Florida. [9] Mazzotti and Cherkiss, 2003. Status and Conservation of the American Crocodile in Florida: Recovering an Endangered Species While Restoring an Endangered Ecosystem. University of Florida. P. 13. Emphasis added. [10] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. third edition. P, 18. [11] NOAA December 1993 South Florida Environmental Quality. NOAA Technical memorandum NOS ORCA 75; City of cape Coral, Summer 2009. Canal Owners Manual. Environmental Resources Divsion [12] city of cape Coral, Summer 2009. Canal Owner's Manual. Environmental Resources Division. [13] Poulaskis, et al.. February. 2010. Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements of Juvenile Smalltooth Sawfish, Pristis Pectinata, in the Charlotte Harbor Estuarine System, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FWRl [14] Langheinrich, et al., 2003. Ditches and Canals in Management of Fens: Opportunity or Risk? A Case Study in the Dromling Natural Park, Germany. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12: 429.445. P. 441 [15] Langheinrich, et al., 2003. Ditches and Canals in Management of Fens: Opportunity or Risk? A Case Study in the Dromling Natural Park, Germany. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12: 429-445. P. 442. [16] TSD for U.S. EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland Surface Fresh Waters. Chapter 4: Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.040
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4103Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Additionally, as previously mentioned, there are canal systems discharging directly into freshwater streams and rivers, which should be differentiated from canals and given their own streams / rivers numeric nutrient criteria for the South Florida ecoregion as well. Though EPA has proposed chla, TN, and TP canals criteria based on the designated uses of the canals themselves; consideration must also be given to protecting sensitive nearshore receiving waters by assigning downstream protective values (DPVs) as assigned to streams. As with DPVs for streams, the canals criteria should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to ensure that their criteria is in alignment with meeting estuarine criteria once those are adopted. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.042
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida We support swimmable/fishable standards for canals in addition to natural waterbodies, because many of our citizens live and boat along canals. Even if we do not swim or fish in some of them, our wildlife does. Of course, our canals also flow into rivers, bays, and coastal waterways that we wish to remain swimmable / fishable, as we actively recreate and consume fish from them. Since having lower standards for canals than their downstream counterparts would undermine source control and inhibit downstream standards from being attained, we support canals continuing to be regulated as other Class Ill swimmable/fishable waterbodies are. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.055
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Finally, at the 2/26/10 FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria workshop, when asked about why there was no streams/rivers criteria being applied to the stream and rivers in the South Florida region - only canals criteria, FDEP staff stated that there is only "one natural (freshwater) stream south of Lake Okeechobee". We strongly beg to differ and are enclosing several exhibits to depict at least 13 freshwater streams and rivers that we identified in our immediate area of Southwest Florida alone (see Exhibits 1-8). These freshwater streams and rivers are not equivalent to canals and should thus, not be lumped in and assigned canals numeric nutrient criteria unless canals criteria is revised to be equivalent to those appropriate for freshwater rivers. In fact, a 2006 study completed by the Conservancy science team of Estero Bay tributaries reveals that 9 of their sampling sites are freshwater year round including portions of the Estero River, Imperial River, and Spring creek.[6] Moreover, FDEP lists at least 7 waterbodies in Southwest Florida as Class Ill Freshwater Streams, under the current water quality standards rule 62.303. In addition to the Estero River, Imperial River, and Spring Creek, more southerly freshwater streams include Halfway Creek, Oak Creek, Cocohatchee River, and the Gordon River. Some of these waterbodies do have estuarine qualities but their upstream counterparts are considered fresh and are currently assessed as such.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4104Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Additionally, the Conservancy's 2006 study demonstrates that the Estero Bay Tributary fresh portions that are meeting the water quality standards for their designated use contain great biodiversity and support numerous species of fish and benthic invertebrates. According to the study, fish abundance also, [6] generally responds to long-term alterations of the physical habitat such as nutrient over-enrichment, whereas benthic invertebrates are more sensitive to localized pollutant loadings. A Spring Creek sample site (SCI) had the highest taxonomic richness of all samples taken, validating that there are functional, natural freshwater streams in South Florida which support abundant life. Because FDEP currently classifies the subbasins (i.e. WBIDs) that these freshwater streams reside in as Class Ill Freshwater Streams, it would be logical to create a separate numeric nutrient standard for these streams that would better reflect the natural characteristics of the waterbody. With FDEP's current sentiment that canals cannot support aquatic life, it is vital to accurately distinguish the natural rivers and streams that we do have in the southern part of the state, so they are not compromised by future regulations - such as downgrading the designated use classification of canals. Attached are closer views to some of South Florida's natural streams and rivers. As seen in the pictures, not all waterways have been channelized or "canalized", and should not be assessed as canal systems. These are clearly natural systems which support a diverse aquatic ecosystem and as such, the Conservancy urges EPA to immediately develop and propose streams / rivers criteria for the South Florida region. [6] Schmid, Jeffrey R, et al. Ecological Calibrations of Estero Bay Basins. October 2006


# Comment ID 1642-1.001.002
Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. I. There are some canals that are conduits from sources to treatment areas. These need to be classified differently ore there will be a large waste of money to treat the water before it reaches the treatment facility. An example in Lee County is a created filter marsh associated with Ten Mile Canal. Waters from a portion of the canal are extracted from the canal, allowed to flow through the marsh and then return to the canal farther downstream. Under the presently stated rule, the water would have to meet stream requirements prior to being introduced into the canal at upstream locations. This poses very expensive problems for Lee County. In order to treat the water before it reaches the canal, industrial lands would have to be taken for construction of the treatment facility. This will take lands of the tax roll and have a loss of jobs due to decreased lands for the industrial uses. There would be cost to construct and operate the treatment facility that will replace a facility that has already been created at a cost of more than several hundred thousand dollars. The present facility is tucked into a long narrow drainage easement that would not be conducive to an industrial use to replace the lost land in other areas. The present system is operated by gravity due to its location. The facility(s) that would have to be located to treat water before it reaches the canal would have to be pumped systems due to lack of elevation changes. This will increase the carbon footprint due to the energy needed for pumping water instead of utilizing gravity to move the water. Similar difficulties exist all over South Florida. One major example is the canal system that delivers waters to the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4105Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Everglades Storage Treatment Areas . Under the present criteria, waters would again have to be treated before it reaches the treatment facilities. This is analogous to having to treat the waste from a toilet before it reaches the waste water treatment plant. Will the EPA set different criteria for canals that are but conduits in a surface water management system ? 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.025
Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Canals Ecosystems of Canals Florida's canals are artificial waterways that were constructed to provide drainage/flood relief, irrigation, navigation and recreation. These canals, especially in South Florida, are regularly dredged and, to provide continuous water flow, cleared of invasive aquatic plants such as hydrilla and hyacinth. For such regularly maintained waterways, what biological community is the EPA's proposed canal criteria designed to protect? The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is currently performing a canal science inventory, but as of now, they have a very limited number of studies and are unsure of what comprises the ecological community within their canals (FDEP 2010e). How can the EPA derive protective criteria for an ecological community it knows nothing about? 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.002
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Background on South Florida Canals From its inception until about the 1970s, the South Florida canal system served four primary functions: drainage, navigation, flood control, and water supply. Ecological functions and recreational uses of canals have developed as incidental benefits. Construction of what is today the primary canal system in South Florida began about 1880 in the Kissimmee River Valley. In 1881, Hamilton Disston purchased four million acres of swampland from the state and initiated efforts to drain this land. He channelized the Kissimmee River during 1881 and 1882 to connect Lake Kissimmee with Lake Okeechobee and then proceeded to connect Lake Okeechobee westward to the Caloosahatchee River with the intent to create a navigable route to Fort Myers. Disston continued channelization of the upper Kissimmee lakes and constructed a number of the canals that connected the lakes together in what is today known as the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4106Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The first canals were dug to drain swamps and marshes to promote cultivation and provide navigable links between agricultural communities in the interior of the state and markets in the coastal cities. These canals drained the land but the effects often did not extend far from the waterway and the initial system was overwhelmed by normal wet season rainfall. To be effective over a larger area, the central canals were eventually enlarged and extensive networks of smaller secondary and tertiary drainage systems were built. A timeline for these activities north of Lake Okeechobee is provided below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table titled Major events related to canal construction in the Kissimmee Watershed (based on Bosquin et al. 2005) on pages 4-5 of the pdf. See original comment letter. The second phase of early canal construction was conducted south of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades. Serious dredging did not begin until the early 1900s and continued until 1949. A timeline of activities south of Lake Okeechobee is below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table titled Major events related to canal construction and water management south of Lake Okeechobee on pages 5-6 of the pdf. See original comment letter. The inability to handle water effectively during wet periods led to a number of changes designed to provide flood control. They included redesign and enlargement of the canals, construction of additional canals to the south of the lake, and construction of the St. Lucie Canal to provide an outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. Completion of the St. Lucie Canal also provided a major navigational benefit. Many of these changes improved drainage, but did not prevent major damage and loss of life due to flooding during the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes. Following the hurricanes, the major focus of construction was to rebuild and enlarge the Lake Okeechobee dike. By the 1930s, drainage through the canal system was having recognizable negative effects on the Everglades.Lower water tables allowed soils to oxidize and subside. The highly organic muck and peat soils dried out and caught fire, due either to human carelessness or lightning strikes. The muck burned both above and below ground, accelerating subsidence and destroying wildlife and plant communities. Accelerated drainage and increased water use resulted in a precipitous decline in groundwater levels near the coast and rapid and extensive intrusion of saltwater into the aquifer. The final events that forced redesign and reconstruction of the South Florida canal system were the hurricanes of 1948. These storms resulted in massive flooding from the Kissimmee Valley to Miami. The following year, the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF Project)(U.S. House of Representatives 1949) was created. The USACE was assigned the task of redesigning the water management system. The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District was created by the State of Florida to act as local sponsor of the federal project. The USACE reevaluated all aspects of the water management system and developed a comprehensive plan to upgrade existing facilities and add new features. Major emphasis was placed on improving navigation and flood control capacity in the Upper Kissimmee and Kissimmee River, enhancing navigation flood control and water supply capabilities of Lake Okeechobee, and improving flood control and water supply for the Everglades Agricultural Area and coastal cities of southeast Florida. A major feature of the 1949 plan was the creation of three Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) to provide storage capacity for flood waters, reservoirs to provide water during dry periods, and areas where natural wetlands and wildlife would be protected from development.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4107Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The C&SF Project, has dramatically altered the waters of south Florida. The current C&SF Project includes 1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and several hundred water control structures. The C&SF Project, which is operated by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), provides water supply, flood control, navigation, water management and recreational benefits to south Florida. As a part of the C&SF, there are four major canals running from Lake Okeechobee to the lower east coast - the West Palm Beach Canal (42 miles long), Hillsboro Canal (51 miles), North New River Canal (58 miles) and Miami canal (85 miles). In addition, there are many more miles of primary, secondary and tertiary canals operated as a part of or in conjunction with the C&SF or as a part of other water management facilities within the area covered by the US EPA's proposed South Florida canal criteria. Other entities operating associated canals include counties and special drainage districts. The hydrology of these canals is highly manipulated by a series of water control structures and levees that have altered the natural hydro-periods and flows of the South Florida watershed on regional to local scales. Freshwater and estuarine reaches of water bodies are delineated by coastal salinity structures operated by the SFWMD. Thus, freshwater and estuarine connectivity is highly altered. During the wet season (approximately June thru October), discharges to tide thru coastal salinity structures may be frequent and large while during the dry season (approximately November through May) discharges are less frequent and may be of smaller volume. Because of this operation, it was initially thought that increased algal biomass is not likely during the wet season, since residence time in the canals is short due to the frequent and large discharges. However, this hypothesis is not borne out by the data, which suggest that chlorophyll levels are actually typically somewhat higher in wet than dry season (see below figure). In addition, circulation in canals decreases with water depth and length, especially in dead-end tertiary canals. Original comment letter contains additional information in a figure on page 6 of the pdf. The figure is darkened so that the axes cannot be read. See original comment letter. In order to maintain the hydraulic conductivity (water-handling capacity) of the water control system, a great deal of vegetation management is necessary, since dense vegetation greatly decreases the already limited water flow within a canal system. Each year, millions of dollars are spent for invasive plant management in Florida's canal systems. Methods used to control aquatic vegetation in canals include mechanical harvesting, biocontrol methods such as grass carp, and herbicide application. Canal configuration and operation, in addition to aquatic vegetation maintenance activities, all have an effect on canal dissolved oxygen levels. Dissolved oxygen levels decrease with increasing distance from the canal inlet and with increased water depth. In deeper canals, water stratifies easily (forms temperature layers), does not circulate much, and does not exchange dissolved oxygen well with the main body of water. In addition, decomposing organic matter resulting from herbiciding of vegetation or settling of solids to the stagnant canal bottom can also deplete dissolved oxygen levels. As a result, poorly circulated canals tend to function as nutrient traps. Aquatic life expectations for canals are different that those for natural, flowing waters. Due to the physical nature of canals, their hydrology, the aquatic vegetation maintenance activities and the resultant effects on dissolved oxygen and other chemical constituents of the canals, the aquatic life in canals cannot be expected to be the same as that of natural, flowing waters. The existing biological metrics for streams (e.g., SCI) do not work in canals. Biological response to nutrients in canals may be very different than in natural water bodies and vary greatly among canals. Often factors other than nutrients limit biological health in canal systems and where canals do respond to nutrients, the response can

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4108Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals be highly dependent on physical and hydrologic characteristics and management of the canal, all of which may change over time. These factors make the assessment of nutrient impacts on canals exceptionally difficult. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.004
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Everglades Agricultural Area The Everglades Agricultural Area comprises those lands south and southeast of Lake Okeechobee in Palm Beach, Martin, Hendry, and Glades counties. These lands were originally part of the natural Everglades system, but were deemed well-suited for agricultural use. Most soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area are muck or peat with a high content of organic material. Flatwoods soils are used for sugarcane and citrus production and cattle ranching. The L-8 basin contains depressional muck, sand, and peat intermixed with sandy soils. The bedrock underlying the area has very low permeability and transmissivity, so there is less exchange with the surficial aquifer than occurs in other parts of the District. Water in the Everglades Agricultural Area canals is dark due to the presence of tannins from the organic soils, has high levels of organic materials, and occasionally has low concentrations of dissolved oxygen due in part to interaction with ground water. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.005
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National ParkThe Everglades includes six basins: five Water Conservation Areas (WCA-1, WCA-2A, WCA-2B, WCA-3A, and WCA3B) and Everglades National Park. The basins have a combined area of 3060 square miles and are served by 18 levees, 5 primary canals, and 60 water control structures. The land use consists mostly of natural landscapes, including a predominance of wetlands with a few isolated upland areas of hammocks, tree islands, and pine flatwoods. Although the soils of these areas have not been surveyed, they consist primarily of hydric peats, mucks, marls, and sands with occasional rock outcroppings. The Everglades basins are geographically separated from Lake Okeechobee by the Everglades Protection Area and are expected to have different ambient water chemistry characteristics than Lake Okeechobee and its intervening waterbodies. Prior to hydrologic modification, Lake Okeechobee may have exhibited characteristics of a more mesotrophic system given the volume of water it received from its tributary watersheds. Because of this, the canals in the EAA, may have water chemistry expectations similar to Lake Okeechobee once connected hydrologically (absent additional anthropogenic inputs). Furthermore, as water moved through the EAA and towards the Everglades, nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4109Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals uptake would occur and the water chemistry would start to exhibit more oligotrophic characteristics. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.006
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Lower East Coast The coastal areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties have a number of features in common. The canals and structures were designed primarily to provide flood protection, deliver water needed for urban and agricultural use, and prevent saltwater intrusion. The primary canals are an outlet for excess water from the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee during wet periods. During dry periods, stored water can be delivered to eastern Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties to help meet local urban and agricultural needs and prevent saltwater intrusion. Most of the land surface in the eastern sections of these counties is underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer, which is directly linked to surface water. The canals are cut through the surface soils and into the rock of the underlying aquifer, providing for a direct exchange of surface and groundwater. The Biscayne Aquifer is highly permeable, transmissive, and extensively used as a source of drinking water by utilities and homeowners. Canal water quality is thus continually influenced by exchange with groundwater, which typically contains elevated concentrations of dissolved nutrients and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The topography of these counties is very flat. The elevation of most the sub-basins is less than 20 feet above sea level, and many areas have an elevation of 5 feet or less. Historically, much of the area was under water or had fully saturated soils for most of the year. Most of the area is covered with hydric (wetland) soils, except for areas near the coast that are underlain by an extensive limestone rock ridge. Historically, this ridge had rocky to sandy soils and was covered with upland vegetation consisting of pine flatwoods and oak hammocks. Today, soil patterns show the predominance of urban and man-made lands in eastern Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. In northern Miami-Dade and southern Broward counties, urban lands extend westward into areas that were historically Everglades peat, muck, sand, and marl wetland soils. Western areas of Miami-Dade and Broward counties east of the WCAs still have Everglades sand, marl, or peat soils in undeveloped areas. In Palm Beach County, lands west of the coastal ridge have higher elevations and contained pine flatwoods vegetation (sandy soils) with intermittent depressional features. In northern Palm Beach County, large areas east of Lake Okeechobee that have hydric peat and depressional soils are protected from development within various local, state and regional parks, preserves, and management areas. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.007
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4110Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals
Lower West Coast The Lower West Coast may be roughly divided into the Big Cypress Region, the Western Flatlands, and the Ten Thousand Islands. The area along the coast, west and north of the Big Cypress, and as far south as Gordon's Pass, is part of the western flatlands. The flatlands are characterized by marshes, swamps, and open water depressions, including Lake Trafford, the Corkscrew Marsh, and the Okaloacoochee Slough. The first canals in Collier County were dug to provide fill for the roads used to promote harvesting of cypress timber. The combined canals and roads greatly altered the historical surface water movements. In 1928, the Atlantic Coastline Railroad extended their service into the Everglades. This railroad extension prepared a roadbed for a new highway and created sizeable drainage canals that effectively divided the Big Cypress wetlands into east and west portions. With the evolution of urban and agricultural development, the traditional surface water flow patterns in the Big Cypress region have undergone drastic changes. As land areas were developed, "ditch and drain" construction practices resulted in a series of canals and numerous roads that tended to overdrain the water table and drastically altered flow patterns of natural drainage basins. Such combinations of development events greatly reduced the extent of functional wetlands, lowered groundwater levels, reduced aquifer recharge, and contributed to concentrating runoff flow rather than preserving sheet flow across the land. The change in flow characteristics resulted in a significant shift in watershed boundaries.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4111Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1715-1.001.005
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The purpose of setting water quality standards is to prevent an imbalance of natural flora and fauna, not to return these water bodies to predevelopment conditions. In fact, the Clean Water Act only authorizes the States and EPA to set water quality standards that are protective of the water bodies' designated use. In this rule, EPA abandons this mandate of linking numeric criteria to the designated use to be protected. There is no link, causal or otherwise, between the numeric values and the use to be protected. EPA did not establish any statistically significant relationship between its chosen values and the resulting biological conditions in the canals, instead relying on unproven inferences and assumptions. Because of this failure to establish a causal link, EPA could not and did not establish a threshold concentration that is protective of the designated uses. Without this threshold, it is unknown if the values proposed will result in any protection. As such, EPA has failed to comply with the directives in the Clean Water Act. 

# Comment ID 1715-1.001.006
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District In addition, EPA derived the criteria for south Florida canals using the same methodology used for natural streams. Acknowledging that the majority of these canals are not natural water bodies, but man-made and used for varying purposes, south Florida canals cannot be assessed using the same criteria as streams. It is well documented that the canals in south Florida and the EAA are subject to considerable groundwater exchange. This feature is never accounted for in the derivation of the criteria 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.003
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The EPD concludes its examination by expressing concerns that NNC for surface canal waters were not developed based on any scientific approach, and do not provide criteria that are truly protective of native species and natural ecosystems that reside within South Florida's surface waters. Implementation of the proposed criteria would not necessarily insure the suitability of surface waters for their designated uses, and would not be costfeasible, achievable, or provide measurable benefits. As part of the rule development process, the USEPA has undertaken two separate scientific peer reviews (ERG, Inc. 2009; SAB, 2010) of the basis for the rule and the proposed criteria. The findings of these reviews also indentified procedural and technical shortcomings regarding several aspects of the proposed total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4112Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals (TP) and chlorophyll corrected for phaeophytin (chlorophyll a) criteria, especially as they apply to South Florida canals. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.007
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The methods used by USEPA in the development of the proposed nutrient criteria for South Florida Canals (USEPA 2010) were somewhat different from those discussed in the Guidance Document that was reviewed by the SAB. The Reference Site method used by EPA in the development of the proposed nutrient criteria for South Florida Canals was not the same as the stressor-response reviewed by the SAB, however, the SAB conclusions are even more applicable to EPA's proposal for South Florida canals. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.013
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Nitrogen Release Controlled by Water Levels Nitrogen release from the soils in the EAA is a result of water management practices in the region that allow the land to be used as the largest source of water to the Everglades and for urban and agricultural development. Draining the land therefore results in release of nitrogen from the soils and elevating concentrations of nitrogen in the canals. The primary management measure utilized within the EAA to control nitrogen losses from the soil involves water table control (i.e., controlling the water table at the highest practical level in order to reduce the depth of the aerobic mineralization zone (CH2M Hill, 1978). There is a subtle trade-off between water table control to minimize mineralization and water table depth to optimize crop yields. In general, water tables depths are currently controlled in a range of less than 12" to 30". Even if there were no agricultural crops grown in the EAA it would still be necessary to maintain a water table depth of at least 12" or more in order to provide flood protection for the EAA and to continue to provide the Everglades with its largest source of surface inflow, mineralization and release of nitrogen from the soils would continue. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.015
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Conclusion The result of the USEPA decision not to distinguish separate sub-ecoregions in South Florida, in combination with the selective nature of their data compilation and selection process (see below) is that the proposed criteria are arbitrary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4113Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals and capricious. They are statistical distributions, derived from the entire region, that are not representative of what occurs in individual water bodies, and therefore cannot be used as an appropriate basis for regulation. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.039
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Chlorophyll in Streams vs. Canals. USEPA is inconsistent in proposing a chlorophyll criterion for canals but not for streams. Furthermore, the proposed chlorophyll criterion for canals is excessively low (as compared to lakes, etc) and is therefore arbitrary. Chlorophyll is generally not considered to be a good water quality indicator for streams and canals and no relationship was established between chlorophyll criterion and any other biological response. It is unclear what biological communities the chlorophyll criterion is designed to protect. In addition to the direct effects of organic content and oxygen status on the composition of stream benthic invertebrate communities, physical (habitat) factors, such as stream velocity (and its distribution in time) and size of bottom substrate particles, are involved indirectly insofar as they control or affect the buildup of organic matter in bottom sediments. Concentrations of nutrients in stream water would not seem to be a primary driving force for this process in most stream environments, even though it can be argued that they stimulate algal growth and thus the build-up of organic matter. This is because planktonic algae tend to be swept downstream by currents; streambeds typically are not long-term depositional environments for organic matter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.073
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District EPA Proposal Ignores Role of STAs. If these criteria proposed in this were achievable within EAA canals, then STAs would be largely unnecessary. Previous investigations associated with the proposed Everglades TMDL (2008) indicated that an appropriate target concentration of phosphorus for loading into an STA was probably greater than 100 ppb. 

# Comment ID 1759-1.001.003
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4114Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals
Additional Comments Babcock also respectfully believes that the criteria developed by the EPA for canals in South Florida must be revised and reassessed because the methodology used by the EPA was flawed for several reasons. First, the EPA derived the criteria for South Florida canals using the same methodology used for natural streams. The EPA did this despite acknowledging that south Florida canals are unique in character and contain their own aquatic life. The reason for the uniqueness is that south Florida waters have been dramatically altered by the Central & Southern Florida ("C&SF") Project, which was authorized by Congress in 1948. The C&SF Project provides water supply, flood control, navigation, water management, and recreational benefits. The C&SF Project has miles of canals, and there are many more canals in south Florida that operate as pati of or in conjunction with the C&SF Project. The hydrology of these canals is highly manipulated by a series of water control structures and levees that have altered the natural hydroperiod, flows, and biology of much of south Florida. Thus, EPA's use of the same methodology as for streams is inappropriate for south Florida canals because this ignores the regional and local issues that affect the canals' designated uses and health. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.015
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 3. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions The EPA's region boundary lines are arbitrary and unsupported. The EPA claims to have drawn the region lines based on geological boundaries developed by the DEP. However, as noted in the DEP's comments on the Proposed Rules, the boundary lines are not consistent with the DEP's approach. Moreover, we believe the use of four (4) nutrient watershed regions does not adequately account for the many subregions with varying geological and other conditions. Some areas do not fit into any of the four regions. An example of the EPA's arbitrary determination of boundary lines is illustrated with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project"). The Peninsula region includes many canals, reservoirs, and impoundments that are part of the C&SF Project. The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals, and almost 200 water control structures. Following disastrous hurricanes and flooding in the early 1900s, the Federal government approved a comprehensive plan for flood control and water conservation, which would encompass the entire area, while satisfying the major needs expressed by various agencies, be beneficial to the greatest number and to the largest portion of the area, and be performed by the Federal government, with local cooperation, seemed to offer the best solution. Congress approved this plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. The C&SF Project, first phase, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 for the purposes of flood control, water level control, water conservation, prevention of salt water intrusion, and preservation of fish and wildlife. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Lake Okeechobee

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4115Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals levees, channels, locks, and major spillways; and the main outlets for WCAs 1, 2A, and 3A. The first phase consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood protection to the agricultural development south of Lake Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the lower east coast of the State. The second phase, consisting of all remaining works of the original Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The C&SF Project includes canals in the South Florida and Peninsula regions of the Proposed Rules. However, the Proposed Rules ignore the fact that many waters in the Peninsula region were designed under the C&SF Project for flood control purposes. As discussed supra, this purpose is ignored in the EPA's definition of "streams" which is defined to include canals except in the south Florida region. The EPA must recognize the important purpose of these water bodies in both the Peninsula and South Florida regions. Notwithstanding our position that canals and ditches constructed for flood control purposes are not navigable waters and are therefore outside the EPA's jurisdiction, it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude canals located outside of South Florida from the "canal" standards and instead give them the same standards as the streams in the Peninsula region. In order to protect Congress' mission of providing flood control relief to these areas, we recommend the EPA exclude canals from regulation or, in the alternative, the EPA should develop consistent standards to apply to the canals in the Peninsula and South Florida regions. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.017
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa B. Canals [15] For a complete discussion regarding Cocoa's technical comments on the proposed canal criteria, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below. [15] Even though the City of Cocoa is not located in the South Florida area, it is offering comments regarding the proposed standards because it questions whether it is appropriate to include canals in the definition of streams outside of South Florida and EPA may respond to this comment by creating a state-wide canal standard similar to the South Florida standard. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.035
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 3. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4116Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The EPA's region boundary lines are arbitrary and unsupported. The EPA claims to have drawn the region lines based on geological boundaries developed by the DEP. However, as noted in the DEP's comments on the Proposed Rules, the boundary lines are not consistent with the DEP's approach. Moreover, we believe the use of four (4) nutrient watershed regions does not adequately accoUIit for the many subregions with varying geological and other conditions. Some areas do not fit into any of the four regions. An example of the EPA's arbitrary determination of boundary lines is illustrated with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project"). The Peninsula region includes many canals, reservoirs, and impoundments that are part ofthe C&SF Project. The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles oflevees, 720 miles of canals, and almost 200 water control structures. Following disastrous hnrricanes and flooding in the early 1900s, the Federal government approved a comprehensive plan for flood control and water conservation, which would encompass the entire area, while satisfying the major needs expressed by the various agencies, be beneficial to the greatest number and to the largest portion of the area, and be performed by the Federal government, with local cooperation, seemed to offer the best solution. Congress approved this plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. The C&SF Project, first phase, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 for the purposes of flood control, water level control, water conservation, prevention of salt water intrusion, and preservation of fish and wildlife. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Lake Okeechobee levees, channels, locks, and major spillways; and the main outlets for WCAs 1, 2A, and 3A. The first phase consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood protection to the agricultural development south of Lake Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the lower east coast of the State. The second phase, consisting of all remaining works of the original Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The C&SF Project includes canals in the South Florida and Peninsula regions of the Proposed Rilles. However, the Proposed Rilles ignore the fact that many waters in the Peninsula region were designed under the C&SF Project for flood control purposes. As discussed supra, this purpose is ignored in the EPA's definition of "streams" which is defined to include canals except in the south Florida region. The EPA must recognize the important purpose of these water bodies in both the Peninsula and South Florida regions. Notwithstanding our position that canals and ditches constructed for flood control purposes are not navigable waters and are therefore outside the EPA's jurisdiction, it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude canals located outside of South Florida from the "canal" standards and instead give them the same standards as the streams in the Peninsula region. In order to protect Congress' mission of providing flood control relief to these areas, we recommend the EPA exclude canals from regulation or, in the alternative, the EPA should develop consistent standards to apply to the canals in the Peninsula and South Florida regions. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.044

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4117Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 3. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions The EPA's region boundary lines are arbitrary and unsupported. The EPA claims to have drawn the region lines based on geological boundaries developed by the DEP. However, as noted in the DEP's comments on the Proposed Rules, the boundary lines are not consistent with the DEP's approach. Moreover, we believe the use of four (4) nutrient watershed regions does not adequately account for the many subregions with varying geological and other conditions. Some areas do not fit into any of the four regions. An example of the EPA's arbitrary determination of boundary lines is illustrated with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project"). The Peninsula region includes many canals, reservoirs, and impoundments that are part of the C&SF Project. The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals, and almost 200 water control structures. Following disastrous hurricanes and flooding in the early 1900s, the Federal government approved a comprehensive plan for flood control and water conservation, which would encompass the entire area, while satisfying the major needs expressed by the various agencies, be beneficial to the greatest number and to the largest portion of the area, and be performed by the Federal government, with local cooperation, seemed to offer the best solution. Congress approved this plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. The C&SF Project, first phase, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 for the purposes of flood control, water level control, water conservation, prevention of salt water intrusion, and preservation of fish and wildlife. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Lake Okeechobee levees, channels, locks, and major spillways; and the main outlets for WCAs 1, 2A, and 3A. The first phase consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood protection to the agricultural development south of Lake Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the lower east coast of the State. The second phase, consisting of all remaining works of the original Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The C&SF Project includes canals in the South Florida and Peninsula regions of the Proposed Rules. However, the Proposed Rules ignore the fact that many waters in the Peninsula region were designed under the C&SF Project for flood control purposes. As discussed supra, this purpose is ignored in the EPA's definition of "streams" which is defined to include canals except in the South Florida region. The EPA must recognize the important purpose of these water bodies in both the Peninsula and South Florida regions. Notwithstanding our position that canals and ditches constructed for flood control purposes are not navigable waters and are therefore outside the EPA's jurisdiction, it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude canals located outside of South Florida from the "canal" standards and instead give them the same standards as the streams in the Peninsula region. In order to protect Congress' mission of providing flood control relief to these areas, we recommend the EPA exclude canals from regulation or, in the alternative, the EPA should develop consistent standards to apply to the canals in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4118Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Peninsula and South Florida regions. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.051
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County B. Canals[15] For a complete discussion regarding Seminole County's technical comments on the proposed canal criteria, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below.

[15] Even though Seminole County is not located in the South Florida area, it is offering comments regarding the proposed standards because it questions whether it is appropriate to include canals in the definition of streams outside of South Florida and EPA may respond to this comment by creating a state-wide canal standard similar to the South Florida standard. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.038
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 3. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions The EPA's region boundary lines are arbitrary and unsupported. The EPA claims to have drawn the region lines based on geological boundaries developed by the DEP. However, as noted in the DEP's comments on the Proposed Rules, the boundary lines are not consistent with the DEP's approach. Moreover, we believe the use of four (4) nutrient watershed regions does not adequately account for the many subregions with varying geological and other conditions. Some areas do not fit into any of the four regions. An example of the EPA's arbitrary determination of boundary lines is illustrated with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project"). The Peninsula region includes many canals, reservoirs, and impoundments that are part of the C&SF Project. The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals, and almost 200 water control structures. Following disastrous hurricanes and flooding in the early 1900s, the Federal government approved a comprehensive plan for flood control and water conservation, which would encompass the entire area, while satisfying the major needs expressed by the various agencies, be beneficial to the greatest number and to the largest portion of the area, and be performed by the Federal government,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4119Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals with local cooperation, seemed to offer the best solution. Congress approved this plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. The C&SF Project, first phase, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 for the purposes of flood control, water level control, water conservation, prevention of salt water intrusion, and preservation of fish and wildlife. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Lake Okeechobee levees, channels, locks, and major spillways; and the main outlets for WCAs 1, 2A, and 3A. The first phase consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood protection to the agricultural development south of Lake Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the lower east coast of the State. The second phase, consisting of all remaining works of the original Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3,1954. The C&SF Project includes canals in the South Florida and Peninsula regions of the Proposed Rules. However, the Proposed Rules ignore the fact that many waters in the Peninsula region were designed under the C&SF Project for flood control purposes. As discussed supra, this purpose is ignored in the EPA's definition of "streams" which is defined to include canals except in the South Florida region. The EPA must recognize the important purpose of these water bodies in both the Peninsula and South Florida regions. Notwithstanding our position that canals and ditches constructed for flood control purposes are not navigable waters and are therefore outside the EPA's jurisdiction, it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude canals located outside of South Florida from the "canal" standards and instead give them the same standards as the streams in the Peninsula region. In order to protect Congress' mission of providing flood control relief to these areas, we recommend the EPA exclude canals from regulation or, in the alternative, the EPA should develop consistent standards to apply to the canals in the Peninsula and South Florida regions. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.045
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville B. Canals[15] For a complete discussion regarding Titusville's technical comments on the proposed canal criteria, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below. [15] Even though the City of Titusville is not located in the South Florida area, it is offering comments regarding the proposed standards because it questions whether it is appropriate to include canals in the definition of streams outside of South Florida and EPA may respond to this comment by creating a statewide canal standard similar to the South Florida standard. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.039

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4120Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 3. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions The EPA's region boundary lines are arbitrary and unsupported. The EPA claims to have drawn the region lines based on geological boundaries developed by the DEP. However, as noted in the DEP's comments on the Proposed Rules, the boundary lines are not consistent with the DEP's approach. Moreover, we believe the use of four (4) nutrient watershed regions does not adequately account for the many subregions with varying geological and other conditions. Some areas do not fit into any of the four regions. An example of the EPA's arbitrary determination of boundary lines is illustrated with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project ("C&SF Project"). The Peninsula region includes many canals, reservoirs, and impoundments that are part of the C&SF Project. The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection offish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals, and almost 200 water control structures. Following disastrous hurricanes and flooding in the early 1900s, the Federal government approved a comprehensive plan for flood control and water conservation, which would encompass the entire area, while satisfying the major needs expressed by the various agencies, be beneficial to the greatest number and to the largest portion of the area, and be performed by the Federal government, with local cooperation, seemed to offer the best solution. Congress approved this plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. The C&SF Project, first phase, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 for the purposes of flood control, water level control, water conservation, prevention of salt water intrusion, and preservation of fish and wildlife. The Corps operates and maintains project works on the St. Lucie Canal; Caloosahatchee River; Lake Okeechobee levees, channels, locks, and major spillways; and the main outlets for WCAs 1,2A,and 3A. The first phase consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood protection to the agricultural development south of Lake Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the lower east coast of the State. The second phase, consisting of all remaining works of the original Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The C&SF Project includes canals in the South Florida and Peninsula regions of the Proposed Rules. However, the Proposed Rules ignore the fact that many waters in the Peninsula region were designed under the C&SF Project for flood control purposes. As discussed supra, this purpose is ignored in the EPA's definition of "streams" which is defined to include canals except in the south Florida region. The EPA must recognize the important purpose of these water bodies in both the Peninsula and South Florida regions. Notwithstanding our position that canals and ditches constructed for flood control purposes are not navigable waters and are therefore outside the EPA's jurisdiction, it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude canals located outside of South Florida from the "canal" standards and instead give them the same standards as the streams in the Peninsula region. In order to protect Congress' mission of providing flood control relief to these areas, we recommend the EPA exclude canals from regulation or, in the alternative, the EPA should develop consistent standards to apply to the canals in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4121Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Peninsula and South Florida regions. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.046
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission B. Canals[15] For a complete discussion regarding OUC's technical comments on the proposed canal criteria, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below.

[15] Even though OUC is not located in the South Florida area, it is offering comments regarding the proposed standards because it questions whether it is appropriate to include canals in the definition of streams outside of South Florida and EPA may respond to this comment by creating a state-wide canal standard similar to the South Florida standard. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.035
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 3. No supporting evidence is provided to indicate that the targets proposed are necessary to protect the designated use of the canals. No clear criteria are identified as protective of designated uses nor is one proposed which understands the unique nature of canal systems. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.038
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 7. It does not make sense that the proposed chlorophyll a criterion for canals is more stringent than the clear lake criterion and the phosphorus criterion is more stringent than any of the TP criteria in the four streams and rivers regions. There is nothing to suggest that canals are more sensitive to these parameters than other water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.013

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4122Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida Further, the EPA is proposing that canals to be treated as flowing waters and the numeric standards established for the canals will be based on reference sites that are natural water bodies. In some cases, highly managed canals do not support the same types of habitat and wildlife that natural water bodies would. Canals may be constructed for a specific purpose that is not associated with recreation (such as flood control, irrigation, and conveyance). Additionally, certain canals have been modified for water quality treatment and serve as the only viable means of pollutant load reduction and should be given due consideration for this function. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.020
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Recommendations: Nutrient criteria for freshwater canals discharging into both Everglades and Biscayne National Parks must be protective enough of the canals' designated use and of downstream receiving water bodies. All of Biscayne Bay and most of Florida Bay are Outstanding Florida Waters and the Bays' sections within Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park are also Outstanding National Resource Waters and merit protection from nutrient impacts. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.038
Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Most South Florida canals were dug by the Federal government for one purpose, to move water off of the land and out to sea.[76] When the canals were dug, no thought was given to creating physical characteristics such as varying bottom depth or oxbows to encourage natural flora and fauna to populate the canals. A majority of the canals were dug as a box shaped structure with straight runs. Therefore, the resultant flow characteristics are either very quick, carrying much sediment or stagnant with no flow at all. Neither resultant flow characteristic promotes healthy conditions for aquatic life. Additionally, designating canals as a Class III water body does not meet the characteristics of their inherent structure. The same biological expectation for streams should not be applied to canals. Canals move water quickly with little interaction with the surrounding landscape. Streams, in contrast, have a high level of interaction with the surrounding landscape. This is especially true in Florida where streams move much slower than other areas of the United States, due to topography. Oxbows and stream channeling cause a constant mixing in the water profile. Some areas have very light mixing with little water movement while other areas mix with much greater intensity. This variation creates unique environments (riparian zones) for the growth of varied emergent and submergent plant life. The numerous species of plant life promote healthy and diverse aquatic life. The high interaction with the surrounding landscape encourages land

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4123Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals animals to interact in greater volume. None of this variation can be found in a canal and biological expectations should not be similar to streams.

[76] http://www.evergladesplan.org/about/restudy_csf_devel.aspx. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) website 

# Comment ID 1813-1.001.007
Author Name: Britt M. Organization: Natural Resources Division, City of Winter Haven 6) The stormwater outflow from the Winter Haven area occurs through the Peace Creek Drainage Canal which is listed as impaired. First, drainage ditches should not be listed since they are seldom deemed to be resources that are 'fishable or swimmable'. Second, the restoration of the historical wetlands in these ditch areas needs to be a priority to restore the hydrologic connections, groundwater recharge and wetland storage for the 'headwaters' lakes system. The goal should be hydrologic restoration in our area, not water quality improvement which would be one of the many benefits of overall restoration. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.002
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management General Comments: In collaboration with the State of Florida, DERM has monitored surface water quality in Biscayne Bay and major canals in its watershed for more than two decades, and we are pleased that this dataset was used in USEPA's analyses. Miami-Dade surface waters, including canals, are typically characterized by low nutrient concentrations, and are uniquely affected by groundwater interactions. Although the canals are artificial or altered freshwater bodies and are operated for flood protection and water supply, they also support fish and wildlife, human recreational uses, and directly affect water quality in wetlands and estuaries that are designated Outstanding Florida Waters, including two national parks and a state Aquatic Preserve. There are few water body segments listed in Miami-Dade as impaired for nutrients . Local environmental programs focus on maintaining or improving existing excellent surface water quality, to protect uses within them and in connected estuaries, wetlands and groundwater. Excessive or increasing nutrients in canals are of particular concern as they are expected to impact fish and wildlife values, increase growth of attached plant species that reduce conveyance capacity for flood protection, reduce recreational values, and increase the costs of weed control and maintenance.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4124Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1830.001.006
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Within the proposed rule itself, DERM recommends refinement of definitions relating to "lakes and flowing waters" and south Florida "canals" to clarify that the criteria proposed apply only to the freshwater portions. Although we understand that components of the proposed rule that were to address "criteria for protection of downstream estuarine waters (DPVs)" were not intended to apply to south Florida canals, and have been delayed, the rule language ultimately must clearly define to which particular water bodies they apply. It is anticipated that ongoing development of estuary criteria will address the adequacy of proposed freshwater canal criteria for protection of Biscayne Bay. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.008
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Detailed Technical Comments on Federal Register Notice: Pg. 4211 FR Section E(1) 1. The general description of south Florida canals omits any discussion of groundwater-surface water interaction and does not acknowledge that discharges from some may affect downstream receiving waters, including estuaries and/or Outstanding Florida Waters. The hydrologic connectivity and exchanged between canal surface water and groundwater of the aquifer has long been established (Miller, 1978; Soneshein, 2000; Cunningham et al, 2004). In Miami-Dade, water management strategy is dependent upon the highly transmissive Biscayne aquifer. Surface water in wetlands, canals, and lakes exchange with, intercept, or recharge groundwater by seepage. In addition to drainage and flood protection, canals are managed to protect groundwater quality and offset salt intrusion. Seepage, flow and exchange with groundwater occurs in both dry and wet periods. General statements in this section relating to residence time or flow may not be appropriate to describe the circumstance of ground and surface water interaction in this area. It should be noted that the County has the desire to maintain low nutrient conditions in the canal systems to: maintain quality of downstream waters, to minimize maintenance costs associated with aquatic plant control, and maximize operational efficiency of the drainage canals. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.009
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 2. Although it is correct that canals in south Florida are artificial, or in some cases are altered configurations of natural sloughs or creeks, they support fish and wildlife, including species of recreational fishing importance and federally listed species. Some canals are affected by vascular invasive aquatic plants, and receive mechanical or chemical aquatic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4125Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals weed control (this becomes relevant in the context of evaluation of the appropriateness of a water column chlorophyll a criterion). Excessive or increasing nutrients in canals are expected to impact fish and wildlife values, but also increase growth of attached plant species that reduce conveyance capacity for flood protection, reduce recreational values, and increase the costs of weed control and maintenance. Additionally, virtually all canals in Miami-Dade County discharge or are hydrologically connected to sensitive natural systems, including Biscayne Bay estuarine waters, freshwater and coastal wetlands, and the Everglades are thus affect water quality in these receiving waters. Virtually all coastal waters and Everglades wetlands in Miami-Dade are designated Outstanding Florida Waters, subject to narrative antidegradation standards. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.010
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212 FR Section E(1) 3. The annotations in the table appear to describe how the proposed criteria will be applied, not how they were derived. Although presented and discussed in the EPA TSD (Chapter 4) additional summarization of the process should be included in the document. It is confusing to introduce these notes at this point in the document, and have the discussion of the application of these criteria much further in the document. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.003
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 4.South Florida Canals Support Excellent Fisheries over a Wide Range of Nutrient (TP) Concentrations; 5.Chlorophyll is not an Appropriate Response Variable for Evaluating Impairment of Aquatic Life Uses by Nutrients in South Florida Canal Environments;



# Comment ID 1834-4.001.015
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 4. South Florida Canals Support Excellent Fisheries over a Wide Range of Total Phosphorus Concentrations Compliance with an overprotective criterion would reduce nutrient concentrations in streams and canals below levels necessary for the protection of the designated use of those waters. This could lead to a decline in productivity of fisheries, since fish standing stocks in oligotrophic water bodies are lower than in meso-eutrophic water bodies. Fish

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4126Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals species, such as redear sunfish, exhibit higher standing stocks in mesotrophic lakes than in oligotrophic lakes. xv. EPA utilizes chlorophyll as the only biological response variable indicative of nutrient enrichment for South Florida lakes and canals; however, because the goal is to protect overall ecological condition and designated uses, it is important to evaluate relationships among nutrients, chlorophyll a, and fisheries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) has conducted surveys of fish populations in canals throughout southeast Florida, and while the number of canals sampled has changed over time, a quantitative method (electro-shocking) has been used consistently. xvi. In 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005, the West Palm Beach Canal has largemouth bass catch rates considered as "excellent" fishing conditions, while TP concentrations have been 80-171 ug/L TP (range of annual means at S5A and S155 for 2000-2005). Sport fisheries likely do not reach peak biomass at TP levels < 100 ug/L. xvii. Reservoirs that have undergone nutrient reductions (oligotrophication) have also seen declines in sport fish biomass. xviii, xix. While the relationship may be less clear in streams than in lakes and reservoirs, it could be argued that the canal environment is much more like a linear lake or reservoir than a free-flowing stream. xx, xxi. The influence of connectivity between southeast canals and the vast Everglades marshes is more important, however than specific nutrient concentration in these canal waters (Figure 3). Original comment letter contains additional information for canals from FDEP in Figure 3 Largemouth bass catch rates as a function of annual TP concentration in several southeast Florida canals. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.022
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1. No Objective Basis Was Provided for Separating Streams from Canals for Developing Criteria EPA divided the portion of south Florida what lies within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) into two bioregions - The peninsular bioregion (areas located primarily north of Lake Okeechobee) and the Everglades Bioregion (areas located primarily South of Lake Okeechobee). The agency acknowledges that there is considerably more information about biological and water quality conditions in the peninsular bioregion than in the Everglades Bioregion. The peninsular bioregion, due primarily to its variable topography, contains a number of natural rivers and stream systems. The region also contains a number of major canals, some of which were constructed along historic waterways and others that are wholly manmade. The Everglades ecoregion by contrast is very flat (generally 20 ft msl or less in elevation) and contains many fewer natural streams and waterways. Many of the historical natural waterways have been channelized and incorporated into the regional canal system. Canals are highly altered or artificially constructed water bodies. They serve as reservoirs to retain stormwater, and as streams to convey excess water downstream. Like streams, canals discharge into receiving water bodies, typically lakes or estuaries. In South Florida, canals also discharge into freshwater marshes. Canals can also allow water to pass through an area without any interaction with the surrounding landscape. The functions of stream riparian zones, including habitat and nutrient retention, are often lacking in canals designed and constructed primarily for flood control.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4127Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals As such, the biological expectation in canals are lower than that of healthy stream systems. Lakes, estuaries and marshes each have different water retention times, and the impacts of nutrients on aquatic systems are strongly linked to retention time. Canals at times have little or no flow over long periods and seasonal pulses of high flow. In this way canals are similar to seasonally-connected oxbows of a large river system - part lake, and part stream. The EPA made the decision to consider all waterways in the Peninsular ecoregion as "streams" and all waterways in the Everglades Ecoregion as "canals" and develop different water quality criteria for canals and streams. No objective scientific basis was provided for this difference in classification, other than location, and therefore this decision to impose different criteria was arbitrary. The decision by EPA to classify all canals located north of Lake Okeechobee as streams and all canals south of Lake Okeechobee as canals is arbitrary and capricious. No scientific basis was provided for this decision and EPA uses this classification as a basis to establish significantly different criteria for canals versus stream. Many of the "streams located north of the lake were constructed in areas that had no prior flowing hydrologic feature (e.g. St. Lucie Canal); whereas many of the coastal "canals," notably in Dade and Broward counties, were constructed along historic river, stream or creek channels.


# Comment ID 1835-1.001.007
Author Name: Nieto G. Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation 4. Treating canals as natural streams is not scientifically defensible. EPA derived the criteria for south Florida canals using the same methodology used for natural streams, while acknowledging that the majority of canals in the EM are not natural water bodies, but man-made conveyances used for a variety of purposes. As such, south Florida and EM canals cannot be assessed using the same criteria as used for natural streams. Because of the physical nature of canals, their hydrology, aquatic vegetation, and these effects on chemical makeup of a canal, the aquatic life in a canal will not be the same as that of a natural flowing water body. Biological responses to nutrients in canals are very different than in natural water bodies, with great variation among canals. The biological health of a canal and its response to nutrients is highly dependent on its physical and hydrological characteristics, coupled with its water management activities. These factors alone distinguish canals from streams. EPA's use of the stream methodology and stream biological metrics to assess canals ignores these obvious and well-known differences, and is arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.012
Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4128Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

- There are about 16 short streams along the coast that drain to lagoonal estuaries. Typical of flatlands in Florida the landscape around these predominantly tidal streams is honeycombed with extensive canals, ditches and swales that were constructed to drain land that was often inundated during our long summer season. EPA should be commended for recognizing that canals are inherently different than creeks. Please consider creating canal criteria in areas other than just southeast Florida. We have seen regional reports showing higher levels of dissolved oxygen in canals rather than streams which is counter-intuitive initially. and could confuse an interpretation of eutrophication. 

# Comment ID 1899.001.002
Author Name: Haley J. Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District The builders who constructed the LWDD drainage canals almost 100 years ago could not have envisioned that these canals would one day be subject to the very stringent numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA in 2010. They could not have foreseen that the canals could be filled with water laden with nutrients and pollutants from products that had not even been invented . Drainage canals were not designed and constructed to provide for the removal of nutrients. For almost 100 years, LWDD canals have successfully done exactly what they were designed and constructed to do, drain the surrounding lands and provide flood protection for future residents and business. Without any regulatory powers LWDD has no way to prevent storm water run off from residents and agriculture from flowing into its canals. In order to discharge the water out of the canal system LWDD would be required to cleanse the water prior to ultimate discharge into the Intracoastal to the east. In order to cleanse the water LWDD would have to create storage treatment areas (STA) encompassing approximately 21,000 acres (15% of the District's total area). A map and illustrative storage treatment areas are enclosed to demonstrate that no matter where an STA is placed it will impact a highly populated area . LWDD does not have undeveloped land available to construct water storage treatment areas. In order to develop any STA within District boundaries many properties would be subject to condemnation . Not knowing exactly where storage treatment areas could be located makes it virtually impossible to calculate the cost in terms of money or human distress except to say that both costs would be catastrophic. LWDD canals are recharged by rainfall and resulting storm water run off. The shallow groundwater aquifer is recharged by the same rainfall and storm water run off seeping into it as well as water seeping in from LWDD canals. Test results of groundwater in southeast Palm Beach County have shown levels of phosphorus at 0.60 mg/I and levels of nitrogen at 1.49 mg/I. Test results of water in LWDD canals show levels of phosphorus ranging from 0.011 mg/I to 0.913 mg/I and levels of nitrogen ranging from .154 mg/I to 3.53 mg/I. While water cleansing is environmentally desirable the cost for LWDD to cleanse the canal water to the proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria would be enormous and fiscally irresponsible. 

# Comment ID 1923.001.007
Author Name: Knight R. Organization: City of Winter Park

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4129Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 8 . Your South Florida canal rule seems to assume that these are fast moving systems. Meeting a stated chlorophyll a limit of 4 ppb, with the allowed 40+ ppb phosphorus would be nearly impossible in these canals that are more often lentic than lotic. During low rainfall periods, flow in these canals may be zero. With P concentrations of 40+ ppb, the chlorophyll a levels in these waters would virtually always exceed the stated limit. 

# Comment ID 2372-1.001.013
Author Name: Farber D. Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. EPA's Proposed Rule seeks to drastically decrease the level of nutrient pollutants that can currently be discharged into Florida's waterways under the State's current narrative standard. If EPA's regulations are adopted as proposed, the TN limit for the East Canal would drop from 3.0 to 1.798 mg/L, and the TP limit would drop from 1.0 to 0.739 mg/L. According to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's recent analysis of EPA's proposed rule,[1] the East Canal currently exceeds EPA's proposed TN in-stream and downstream standards. Thus, if the Proposed Rule is adopted, the East Canal would immediately be listed as an "impaired" waterbody under the Clean Water Act. [1] FDEP's preliminary assessment is available at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

# Comment ID 2394.001.004
Author Name: Hamel R. Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association Second, GCGA is particularly concerned with EPA's nutrient criteria for South Florida's canals! When reviewing EPA's criteria for South Florida's canals, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences' (IFAS) "specialists" expressed that quote: "they are of `major concern' for agriculture"! We fully agree with these scientists! They suggest that the proposed criteria of .042 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for Total Phosphorus (TP) is "quite low", and "considerably less" than what crops need! That means major reductions in phosphorus will be necessary to comply. These "reductions" will "reduce" crops, "reduce" income and significantly impact our members' ability to compete with other U.S. and international citrus producers. We strongly feel that water quality standards must be "attainable" and "sustainable" for Florida's agricultural operations to remain viable. America does not need to "export" its agricultural industries! We encourage EPA to work with University of Florida scientists, the Florida Department of Agriculture, the USDA and the agricultural community as needed to find balanced solutions. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4130Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that have noted the unique nature of canals in South Florida; and notes the following commenter concerns: canals are not natural systems; EPA’s decision to not propose geographic-specific criteria for South Florida canals; consideration that canals discharge into National Parks; that further clarification of the boundary of the proposed canal criteria application was needed; that EPA needed to justify why the canal criteria would apply to only South Florida canals; the need to replace FDEP’s narrative criteria; that natural fresh water streams in South Florida should have used stream criteria rather than canal criteria; the relationship of criteria to point source discharges and STAs; impact of canals crossing tribal lands; the magnitude of the proposed criteria; the linkages between nutrients and designated uses; consideration of confounding physical and hydrologic features on the biological community; needed flexibility in the frequency and duration components of the criteria; demonstration that chl-a is an appropriate response variable; and justification for dual TN and TP nutrient criteria. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS Comment ID 1291-1.001.007
Author Name: Brown A. Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration We are also concerned that nearly pristine reference sites were selected as background sites in determining the definitions of impaired systems. Can these levels truly be expected near human activity and what controls/clean-up can or should be accomplished for the water bodies that will be designated as impaired due to statistical calculations alone? We are concerned that standards can not be developed so quickly if they are truly based on sound science. 

# Comment ID 1301-1.001.006
Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated In the South Florida region, EPA proposed criteria after DEP had determined the data was not adequate to propose criteria, due to the challenges with water regimes based upon and influenced by thousands of miles of manmade canal systems. A scientist with the South Florida Water Management District who is leading a group evaluating the criteria made the following statement: "Scientific grounds for applying nutrient criteria to canals is weak."

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4131Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.003
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 2. EPA's Technical Support Document recognizes the unique soils and geologic features in the South Florida region comprising the area in which EPA's proposed canal criteria would apply. These four sub-regions were ignored, however, in the final derivation of the criteria and data from these disparate areas was used as the basis of the proposed criteria, applicable to all of the four areas. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.005
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 4. EPA not only failed to recognize the unique natural features of the EAA but also excluded data from the EAA that should have been used in its criteria derivation. EPA cannot justify excluding EAA data from canals that have not been determined impaired and cannot rely on DEP impairment findings for non-nutrient constituents. DEP has not made a final determination that any Class III canal in the EAA is impaired for either nitrogen or phosphorus. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.153
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA used existing water quality assessments and identified canals that had been determined to be impaired for nutrients. Data for those canals were excluded from a larger data set in order to create a set of data representing canals attaining the designated use of aquatic life, according to FDEP's assessment designations. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals were developed for two causal variables, TN and TP, and one response variable, chlorophyll a. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.155
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Statistical distributions and descriptive statistics (e.g., quartiles, mean, standard deviation) of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a concentrations were developed from data from canal sites across south Florida that are not on the impaired waters list. EPA determined that the criteria for canal water quality should be developed using data from canals with no evidence of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4132Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals nutrient impairment. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.156
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA determined that the criteria for canal water quality should be developed using data from canals with no evidence of nutrient impairment. However, a WBID might not be deemed impaired for one of two reasons: 1) water quality data indicate that the water body does not meet its designated use, or 2) insufficient data exist to make a determination of impairment. It is unclear from the reviewed documents whether only verified unimpaired WBIDs were used, or if WBIDs with insufficient data were also included in the data set that was used to develop the proposed criteria. In addition, elimination of data for stations in unimpaired WBIDs that were within 1,000 meters of an impaired WBID further biases this assessment. Because the impairment status of WBIDs with insufficient data is unknown, WBIDs with insufficient data should not be included in the analysis. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.167
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County We further note that the methods used to select the "reference" canals are too restrictive and overly conservative. Canals impaired only for low dissolved oxygen (but tied to nutrients in accordance with the Impaired Waters Rule) are excluded from the analyses. In its TMDL document for the Everglades Agricultural Area, EPA acknowledges that it may not be possible to meet the statewide standards for dissolved oxygen in canals even after nutrient reductions are achieved due to the influence of groundwater. This statement was specific to Class IV canals, but the same is expected to be true in the Class III canals. In addition, all stations within an unimpaired WBID but that were withing 1,000 meters of an impaired WBID were excluded from the analysis. This was done in order to account for "potential inaccuracies in location data," but the use of a 1,000 meter buffer is extreme. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.056
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

• Some of the data used to derive the canal criterion were taken from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level, groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4133Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.062
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Methodology Based on the available information for canals, EPA chose a nutrient concentration distribution based approach using data from only those canals that have been determined to support the applicable designated use. This is the same approach that EPA examined in setting nutrient targets for Florida streams (EPA, 2010a, page 140). Original comment letter contains additional information for canals from EPA in Table 1. Proposed nutrient criteria for Florida canals. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.064
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA used existing water quality assessments and identified canals that had been determined to be impaired for nutrients. Data for those canals were excluded from a larger data set in order to create a set of data representing canals attaining the designated use of aquatic life, according to FDEP's assessment designations. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals were developed for two causal variables, TN and TP, and one response variable, chlorophyll a. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.066
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Statistical distributions and descriptive statistics (e.g., quartiles, mean, standard deviation) of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a concentrations were developed from data from canal sites across south Florida that are not on the impaired waters list. EPA determined that the criteria for canal water quality should be developed using data from canals with no evidence of nutrient impairment. However, a WBID might not be deemed impaired for one of two reasons: 1) water quality data indicate that the water body does not meet its designated use, or 2) insufficient data exist to make a determination of impairment.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4134Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.067
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners It is unclear from the reviewed documents whether only verified unimpaired WBIDs were used, or if WBIDs with insufficient data were also included in the data set that was used to develop the proposed criteria. Because the impairment status of WBIDs with insufficient data is unknown, WBIDs with insufficient data should not be included in the analysis. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.009
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) C. EPA's Data Set and Reliance on DEP's Impaired Water Bodies List is Highly Selective and Flawed EPA's review of the readily available data is flawed and does not withstand scrutiny. EPA eliminated significant data points for reasons that are unclear and not scientifically defensible. In addition, EPA ignored numerous other data points, readily available to it through the DEP. As much as 350 additional data points were ignored and never assessed by EPA in this Nutrient Rule. The data ignored by EPA is included in the Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record. At a minimum, EPA must consider and assess this data prior to finalizing the Nutrient Rule. In addition to ignoring data, EPA improperly and incorrectly used the DEP's Impaired Water Bodies list. First, EPA excluded many water bodies that are not impaired for nutrients. For example, EPA excluded numerous water bodies that were impaired for Dissolved Oxygen (DO), assuming the DO impairment was related to nutrients. EPA made this assumption, despite stating that low levels of DO could occur due to other natural factors such as organic soils or interaction with groundwater (very common in the EAA and in south Florida). It is well known that dissolved oxygen levels in canals are affected by water depth and distance from the canal inlet, creating great variability throughout the canal reach. In addition, aquatic vegetation management activities can affect DO levels in canals. In the EAA, EPA failed to include the S-8 Basin in its derivation. EPA excluded all data from the S-8 basin, even though it is not listed for any constituents in DEP's impaired water bodies list. The latest and most recent verified lists from the DEP are included in the Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record. The S-8 basin, which would be in DEP's Group 5 category if impaired, is not listed at all. This failure alone, changes the numeric values proposed in the rule. When this failure is coupled with EPA's exclusion of water bodies not impaired for nutrients, the proposed values for south Florida change dramatically. Because the impaired water bodies list is the cornerstone of how EPA derived this Rule, EPA's data selection approach must consider all available data first and must follow scientifically accepted principals for any exclusions. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.025

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4135Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts Specific to the selection of reference sites for the South Florida canals, basically the only canals that EPA considered unimpaired were those within the Biscayne Aquifer system. These canals are groundwater systems and thus have lower nutrient levels than would be expected for canals that are primary surface water feed. Almost all of South Florida's canals are surface water feed; therefore, the reference sites selected are not representative of the South Florida canals and resulted in arbitrarily low nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.007
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute For canals in south Florida, EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, TN, and TP criteria that EPA asserts are based on levels found in canals that are meeting their designated uses with respect to nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.025
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District F. Using Water Quality Monitoring Sites Not Included in Florida's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List ("303(d) List) as ‘Reference Sites' is Highly Biased, Provides No Evidence Concerning Ecological Balance, and is an Inappropriate Interpretation of the Listing Process The 303(d) list was developed to identify areas appearing not to meet water quality standards and therefore requiring prioritization for TMDL development. Using the list to select unimpaired canals is scientifically unsound and may be contrary to Section 403.067, Fla. Stat., which states that the 303(d) list is not to be used for any regulatory purpose, at least under Florida law. Any canal reference site should reflect direct evidence of conditions fully meeting the designated use and should be selected based on known thresholds that define imbalances in flora and fauna (e.g., land use, riparian habitat, pollution sources, etc.) and encompass physiographic differences (e.g., ecoregions). As noted above (#2), USEPA would have to demonstrate for the south Florida water management system canals, how imbalance would be defined for devices maintained for water conveyance purposes. Due to the fact that canals are conveyance devices and flow dynamics can vary greatly based on location, USEPA must also match any potential reference sites with representative flow regimes. It would not be defensible to use canals draining small undeveloped areas as reference sites for those draining large, developed areas. The selection process

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4136Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals for reference sites should not be based upon the target parameters (TN & TP) to avoid obvious circularity and lack of independence. By USEPA's logic, a site is a reference site for contaminant A because the levels of contaminant A are low without any consideration of biological functions. In addition, sites used must be independent of each other to avoid spurious correlation and unintended data bias (multiple sites in one canal are NOT independent). Bias is self-evident in the fact that the draft criteria for TP (42 ppb) and Chla (4 ppb) in South Florida canals are substantially lower than those for natural streams (TP, 107 ppb) and lakes (Chla, 20 ppb), respectively; an absurd result. There is no justification for this inconsistency and none is apparent from general principles of ecological science. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.039
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Although EPA's proposed canals criteria are based on best available science, some improvements could be made to ensure protection of downstream waters and maintain their current designated use. The Conservancy supports the use of the reference site approach based on canals that are currently unimpaired for nutrients. However, EPA should be aware that simply because a waterbody is not listed on the state's 303(d) List, does not mean it is in fact not impaired ­ many times they are not listed as impaired simply due to insufficient sampling. Not only is the current 303(d) List based on chl-a thresholds of 20 ug/L, which is significantly higher than EPA's proposed 4 ug/L, but lack of sampling can also exclude waters from the 303(d) List. Moreover, some waterbodies may be listed as impaired for Dissolved Oxygen (with TN and/or TP being the causative pollutant) and subsequently not listed as impaired for Nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.009
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Failure to Recognize Sub-Regions within South Florida USEPA, in its technical analysis of water quality conditions in South Florida (Chapter 4 of the Technical Supporting Document) also recognized the need to allow for regional differences in physical and chemical conditions within South Florida and identified four distinctive sub-regions based on soil types and presented some of their subsequent analyses individually for these different sub-regions. However, in their final data compilation and methodology for rule development, data for all four sub-regions were combined and used to calculate a single set of numerical criteria for canals in the entire area south of Lake Okeechobee. USEPA failed to distinguish among South Florida's sub-regions, despite apparent differences in soil, geology and surface water hydrology that are at least as distinctive as those which prompted USEPA to establish such sub-regions in other parts of the state.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4137Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The Science Advisory Board, which was selected by USEPA to review their proposed rule, published a draft report (January 8, 2010) that, among other issues, stressed the importance of geology as a foundation for defining different ecoregions within South Florida. This review suggested, for example, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) should be considered as a unique area based on distinctive features of soil, geology, etc. and that South Florida (exclusive of EAA) could also be subdivided into several regions, e.g., Everglades, Rocky Glades, Marl Prairie, Coastal Plain, and Riverine. USEPA ignored these regions, instead opting to categorize all of south Florida as one ecoregion Canals in south Florida are part of a highly managed surface water system. Many canals were created for the sole purpose of water supply and flood control. In fact, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) operates and controls over 1800 miles of canals which make up the Central and South Florida Control Project. This Project, originally authorized by Congress in 1948, has dramatically altered the landscape and water resources of south Florida. The SFWMD has developed the following sub-regional designations for areas of mainland Florida within its jurisdiction based on hydrology, geology, landscape features, and water management considerations. These sub-regions are used for planning, modeling, regulation and rulemaking:

• Kissimmee Upper Lakes - hydrology, geology, soils, topography

• Kissimmee River/Lake Istokpoga Basin- hydrology, soils, topography

• Lake Okeechobee - hydrology

• Caloosahatchee--underlying phosphate deposits,

• Upper East Coast -soils, hydrology and aquifer characteristics

• EAA and EPA - muck Soils and hydrology

• Lower East Coast and ENP--Dade and Broward and Palm Beach Counties - rock/marl soils and connection to surficial aquifer,

• Lower West Coast/Big Cypress - soils and natural drainage features, 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.010
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Many of Florida's surface waters are subject to considerable groundwater exchange, particularly canals; this aspect is not quantified or accounted for on the development of EPA's numeric criteria. Although the influence of groundwater interactions on ambient nutrient concentrations measured at "reference" canal sites was not considered, the resulting distributions of nutrient and chlorophyll a (chlorophyll) concentrations for these reference canal sites is likely different than would be exist if no such interaction takes place (e.g., EAA).

• LEC canals in Dade and Broward counties are primarily fed by flow from upstream Everglades' wetlands mixing with high quality/ low nutrient groundwater from the Biscayne Aquifer and thus should be considered as oligotrophic systems with respect to phosphorus concentrations.

• LEC canals in northern Palm Beach County receive a substantial amount of water directly from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee and have much less interaction with the Biscayne Aquifer. These canals should be considered as mesotrophic systems with respect to phosphorus.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4138Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

• LWC canals are fed by flow from upstream wetlands in the Everglades and Big Cypress watersheds and therefore are also oligotrophic systems. Because of this interrelated and unique water management system exists in South Florida, EPA should have accounted for sub-regional characteristics and unique features of the canals in deriving its numeric criteria. Instead, EPA arbitrarily and without explanation relies on the derivation methodology used for rivers and streams. The aquatic life in canals will not be the same as flowing rivers and streams. These highly managed water bodies do not support the same level and value of biological indicators. Accordingly, any numeric criteria set for canals must consider this fundamental difference between a canal and a natural water bodies such as a river or stream. The conclusions of the peer review (Science Advisory Board, 2010) indicate that a method of classification in keeping with the more detailed regionalization system developed and used by the SFWMD would be superior in scope and cost effectiveness, accuracy, reliability, and defensibility to the more haphazard and broad-sweeping categorization used by USEPA that places all of South Florida within a single ecoregion. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.012
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Additional information provided by technical experts (see attached reports by Waller (2010) and Izuno (2010) and the introductory section by DB Environmental (2010) describe the technical basis for subdividing south Florida into different ecoregions. The most notable such region is the EAA. This area differs remarkably from the rest of South Florida based not only its soils, geology and hydrology, but also due to the impacts of human development and management. Soils in the EAA have intrinsically high concentrations of nitrogen (ranging from 2% to 4% by weight). Due to region wide water supply practices, water table management, and the urbanization and farming of this land during the past century, EAA soils experience oxidation and mineralization that result in high concentrations of nitrogen in surface waters. Much of the excess nitrogen is lost to denitrification and the remainder is taken up by crops, leaving only a small fraction of the total amount of nitrogen available for export in surface waters. Nevertheless TN concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher occur in EAA waters on a regular basis. Izuno (2010) provides a detailed description of the nature of EAA soils and surface hydrology and explains why water quality criteria developed based primarily from other south Florida ecoregions are not an appropriate basis for defining criteria for canals built in the muck soils of the EAA. Almost all of the water quality data used to establish the proposed criteria came from canals located outside the EAA-from canals in the rock, marl and sandy soils of the southeast coast that interact with the underlying Biscayne aquifer, and canals built in the shallow sandy soils of the southwest coast that are underlain by a relatively impermeable rock layer. These data are an arbitrary and capricious basis to define criteria for canals built in the muck soils of the EAA. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.016
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4139Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals No Objective Basis Was Provided for Separating Streams from Canals. USEPA divides the portion of south Florida that lies within the jurisdiction of the SFWMD into two bioregions - The peninsular bioregion (areas located primarily north of Lake Okeechobee) and the Everglades Bioregion (areas located primarily south of Lake Okeechobee). USEPA acknowledges that there is considerably more information about biological and water quality conditions in the peninsular bioregion than in the Everglades Bioregion. The peninsular bioregion, due primarily to its variable topography, contains a number of natural rivers and stream systems, as well as a number of major canals, some of which were constructed along historic waterways and others that are wholly manmade

The Everglades ecoregion, by contrast is very flat, generally 20 ft msl or less in elevation, and contains fewer natural streams and waterways. Many of the historical natural waterways have been channelized and incorporated into the regional canal system, used for water supply and flood control. Canals are highly altered or artificially constructed water bodies. They serve as reservoirs to retain stormwater, and as channels to convey excess water downstream. Like streams, canals discharge into receiving water bodies, typically lakes or estuaries. In South Florida, canals also discharge into freshwater marshes. Whereas streams generally have floodplains, are fed by runoff from, and periodically overflow into, the surrounding watershed, canals often allow water to pass through an area with little or no interaction with the adjacent landscape. The functions of stream riparian zones, including habitat and nutrient retention, are often lacking in canals designed and constructed primarily for flood control. As such, the biological expectations in canals are lower than those of healthy stream systems. Lakes, estuaries and marshes each have different water retention times, and the impacts of nutrients on aquatic systems is strongly linked to retention time. Canals may have little or no flow over long periods and then experience seasonal pulses of high flow. In this way canals are similar to seasonally connected oxbows of a large river system ­ part lake, and part stream. The USEPA decision to consider all waterways in the Peninsular ecoregion as "streams" and all waterways in the Everglades ecoregion as "canals" and develop different water quality criteria for canals and streams is arbitrary and capricious. No scientific basis was provided to justify the establishment of criteria in canals that differ significantly from those developed for streams. Many of the "streams" located north of the lake were constructed in areas that had no prior flowing hydrologic feature (e.g. St. Lucie Canal) whereas many of the coastal "canals," in South Florida notably in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, were constructed along historic river, stream or creek channels. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.008
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior South Florida Canals: Division of Basins: Presently the nutrient criteria for South Florida Canals were derived based on four broad geographic areas south of Lake Okeechobee based on soil type and existing geopolitical boundaries: Everglades Agricultural Area,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4140Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Everglades Protection Area, West Coast, and East Coast. It is noteworthy that the proposed Total Phosphorus Criterion does not apply to canals within the Everglades Protection Area as those canals have an existing criterion of 0.010mg/L. The Everglades Protection Area does not include canals flowing into Biscayne Bay. We recommend the division of South Florida into more than four regions to better account for the geomorphologic differences in South Florida. We have recommended above that EPA modify its strategy of defining nutrient criteria boundaries to those based on soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology, and we have attached a proposed concept approach with potential basin designations. In particular, the SFDOI recommends addition of a Biscayne Bay Basin which includes all of Miami-Dade County plus portions of southern Broward and northeastern Monroe Counties. Water bodies in the proposed Biscayne Bay Basin are phosphorus limited with very low values for TP because of the absence of geological sources, the limestone aquifer high affinity for chemical binding of available phosphorus, and the generally nutrient-limited tendency exhibited by subtropical and tropical ecosystems. We believe adequate supporting data is available to make that modification in the current proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.013
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior The nutrient criteria proposed by the USEPA for South Florida were derived based on four broad geographic areas south of Lake Okeechobee. This classification was based on soil type and existing geopolitical boundaries. These four regions are: Everglades Agricultural Area, Everglades Protection Area, West Coast, and East Coast. Numeric nutrient criteria have already been established for phosphorus in the Everglades Protection; all canals in the Everglades Protection Area must meet the needs of the existing criteria (62-302.540 F.A.C.). The East Coast section includes the eastern half of southern Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, encompassing heterogeneous soil, geology, land use, and other physical features which may significantly affect nutrient concentrations in surface and groundwater. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.024
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 4) We recommend that information on nutrient enrichment be considered for setting TN criterion. In the Biscayne Bay Basin, only TN-impacted canals have TN concentrations similar to the USEPA proposed criterion, which occurred with a frequency of more often than 50% of the time. These canals - such as the Princenton and Mowry - currently show adverse impacts on the aquatic and marine ecosystem from nutrient enrichment. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.009
Author Name: Bronson C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4141Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

• In calculating criteria for South Florida canals EPA provided no basis for separating streams from canals, failed to use all readily available data in applying its methodology to canals, and made large errors and omissions in the application of its methodology. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.021
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Errors and Omissions in Calculating Criteria for South Florida Canals This overall comment is supported below by the following individual comments: 1.�EPA provided no basis for separating streams from canals; 2.�EPA failed to use all readily available data in applying its methodology to canals; 3.�EPA made large errors and omissions in the application of its methodology for canals; and, 4.�EPA’s proposed criteria are overly protective of many areas of south Florida because the Agency failed to develop different criteria for the four distinct geologic regions



# Comment ID 1834-4.001.023
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2. Failure to Use all Readily Available Data in Applying Methodology to Canals Below is a map of the approximately 350 sampling stations that were not used by EPA, but which were readily available from FDEP as part of the Impaired Waters Rule database (Figure 4). Therefore EPA’s canal criteria are arbitrary. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals from FDEP in Figure 4. Approximately 350 sampling stations not used by EPA were available from FDEP as part of the Impaired Waters Rule database. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.009
Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4142Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals EPA used a reference water approach to propose canal criteria. The agency's claim to have identified "reference canals" in South Florida defies logic and common sense, particularly after having rejected the Florida DEP's use of highly studied reference streams arguing that some level of perturbation is inherent to all Florida waters. Canals are man-made waterbodies that are highly managed and frequently disturbed systems subject to dredging, regulated or interrupted flow and frequent herbicide treatment. Data associated with canals, and submitted to the Florida database,would most certainly include data from disparate conditions, e.g., flow withheld, post-herbicide treatment or postdredging, and therefore not suitable for use for deriving criteria. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that have noted the unique nature of canals in South Florida; and notes the commenterconcerns expressed by the approach that EPA chose to screen the data analyzed and EPA’s decision to not propose geographicspecific criteria for South Florida canals. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2.A - DERIVATION OF PROPOSED NUMERIC CRITERIA Comment ID 0588.001.007
Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County EPA's Chlorophyll a Criteria for South Florida Canals is not appropriate

- Not clear what biological community the criteria are designed to protect

- Chlorophyll a in the water column is not an appropriate indicator of algae growth in canals due to the unique dynamics of algae in canals.

- No relationship between proposed criteria levels and biological response in canals

- Should require biological validation before listing as impaired and should provide clear SSAC process 

# Comment ID 0589.001.014

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4143Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 14. The JW Corbett Wildlife Management Area is one of the most pristine natural areas in Palm Beach County. Analysis of recent limited data discharging from this area indicates 75 percentile values of 0 .051 and 0 .052 mg/I TP. A NNC of 0.042 mg/I is lower than the 75% of this Palm Beach County relevant area and therefore appears to be too restrictive. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.025
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 10. The established criterion for Chlorophyll-a by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is "Annual mean chlorophyll-a concentrations are greater than 20 mg/L or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll-a values have increased by more then 50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years". It is not logical to use an indicator such as chlorophyll-a to deduce nutrient impairment then eliminated basins basins that exceed the nutrient values, then establish nutrient levels based on the remaining data and then yet establish an indicator value 5 fold lower then the value utilized to determine "Impairment". At a minimum the value should be 20 not 4 mg/L. However, once criteria are set there is no need for an indicator. It is arbitary and capricious to have an indicator after NNC are established. 

# Comment ID 0665.001.004
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League What I do want to focus on is the method that you use. The reference site method which, as you know, just by the streams or water bodies you pick as reference sites will determine the outcome, that together with the percentile that you pick as acceptable. And that method, in this case, failed to recognize fundamental differences between canals in South Florida. And I only have time to illustrate my point with one example which will expand on comments made earlier by James Charles. The Biscayne aquifer is unique as a formation in Florida, probably in the country. It's highly transmissive. The flows through that honeycombed aquifer are a thousand times greater, the transmissivity is a thousand times greater than the sandy soils that prevail in South Florida. And with the design of the central and southern flood control project, the Corps holds water levels in the Everglades to the west four feet higher than the water levels to the east in the canals that you've used as your reference sites. Most of the reference sites come from canals in Dade and Broward, or at least the greatest percentage. We haven't been able to figure that out entirely, but they are clearly skewing the result. And even though that is Everglades water with incredibly low nutrients, and it's groundwater, it doesn't represent conditions in any other system in the State. But those are the dominant reference sites you're using for South Florida, including our canals, which are much more similar to the phosphate areas where the natural phosphate deposits influence as phosphorous in the water. In our area, nitrogen is a natural component, which you've

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4144Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals
excluded all of our canals from the consideration. 

# Comment ID 0665.001.005
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League You've also determined that 25 percent of these incredible pristine sites in the Biscayne aquifer are not -- are excluded; they're not in compliance. You've taken the 75th percentile, which means 25 percent of those fail. I don't think that's a rational basis for establishing criteria that will apply. And that leads to unintended consequences that I can see I won't have time to address, but I will in written comments. But the unintended consequence, real quickly is, it's a goal of the restoration of the Everglades to stop that flow, to keep that million acre feet of water in the Everglades. And when you do that, those are two of the most cost-effective projects proposed. You're going to change the water quality and the dynamics in this area of Biscayne water aquifer in Dade and Broward. And because of the adverse impact on those people, the greater number of taxpayers in the district, you probably won't have a local sponsor for one of the critical restoration projects. And I don't think you've had time to consider these impacts, but I think you need to. Thanks. 

# Comment ID 0813.001.001
Author Name: Teich L. Organization: City of Fort Lauderdale The causal relationship between the response and casual variables was not fully evaluated in this proposed criteria. Nutrient impaired waters were not demonstrated to have a direct correlation from the nutrient load to the Chlorophyll A concentration, and the downstream impact was not evidenced through the study. Basically the use of canals for fishing and public use was not demonstrated to be impaired for its intended function. Out of the 3,400 canal sites in South Florida that were studied, only 500 were used based on existing nutrient data. Of those 500, the data were further whittled down based on whether it had Chlorophyll results associated to total nitrogen and total phosphorous. That resulted in analysis of 258 records from 725 sites. It appears that no other sites were evaluated as far as this progression analysis for justification that's used as an indicator. The current SCAs that are used by the South Florida Water Management District that are designed to mitigate nutrient enrichment are currently not able to obtain the Everglades protection area criteria of 10 PPB. This forebodes that the criteria proposed currently is set up for failure. The criteria probably should have been first developed for the downstream receiving bodies prior to the upstream. There is a general lack of information on implementation enforcement in this rule that will result on MS4s being forced to come up with an alternative plan to submit for water quality standards the approval process and variance submittal to the EPA and ongoing mitigation plans that could run in perpetuity. There are significant costs associated to this preliminary estimate of potential compliant costs uses DEP draft criteria to establish baseline cost. The draft criteria was never adopted, so this cost basis is conjectural at best. The numbers presented by EPA appear misleading because they are only accounting for what is above and beyond the DEP draft criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4145Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0884.001.013
Author Name: Wertephy A. Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 3 . On Page 4212, U.S. EPA proposes Water Quality Criteria for South Florida Canals (Chlorophyll-a value of 4.0 ug/l, Total Nitrogen (TN) of 1 .6 mg/1, and Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.042 mg/1). Technical support documents provided "Chapter 4 -Methodology for Deriving U.S . EPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals" states that the U. S . EPA is proposing this criteria based on the 75th percentile (as shown in the attached Table 4-1) from all available freshwater canal data from sites located in waterbody IDs (WBIDs) that have not been identified for nutrient impairment. In the technical support document ("7.10 Florida Nutrient Benchmark Distributional Approach for Rivers and Streams") Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) concluded that the use of the 90th percentile of nutrient concentration derived from distribution of minimally disturbed streams is inherently protective of aquatic life and documentation of healthy biological communities based on the use of the effective biological assessment method directly demonstrates that aquatic uses are fully met within the associated range of nutrients. Use of a 75th percentile would result in an excessive error, with a large number of healthy sites incorrectly classified as impaired. It would appear that U.S. EPA is taking an overly conservative approach, establishing criteria which would unnecessarily require that resources be expended to address waters that do not need it. Therefore, it is suggested that U.S. EPA use DEP's recommendation of the 90th percentile . As shown in Table 4-1, this would establish a chlorophyll-a criteria of 5.5 ug/1, 2.1 mg/1 for TN (based on all four regions at sites not listed as impaired for nutrients), and 0.073 mg/1 for TP (based on nutrients across three regions not listed as impaired, West Coast, EAA, and East Coast). 

# Comment ID 0935.001.004
Author Name: Perez A. Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities The City is not aware of algal blooms and their associated toxic effects ever occurring in local canals . In addition, the City has local canal field data that shows several instances where total phosphorus (TP) increased with no increase in chlorophyll a and also where TP decreased and chlorophyll _a was elevated. On occasion, sample results meet the proposed TP maximum and yet chlorophyll a is several times the proposed standard . 

# Comment ID 0981-1.001.006
Author Name: Melchiori R. Organization: Becker Holding Corporation This concern is especially important to the Becker Companies because essentially all of our existing farms drain into waters designated as south Florida canals. The basis of the EPA's application of the streams and flowing waters scientific approach (statistical distribution) to south Florida canals is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that canals are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4146Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals similar to streams and other flowing waters when in fact unlike natural streams, which have unidirectional flow, most or all south Florida canals experience multidirectional flow based on the function they are performing at any given time. In drainage mode these canal systems are generally flowing "downstream" toward receiving waters, however, that flow direction can be an often is reversed when the canals are serving an irrigation source function. When conditions are relatively stable, these canals often have extended periods of no flow. The result is that statistical analysis of data collected from these canals in order to establish the basis for numeric nutrient criteria must take into account both the existing and antecedent flow conditions or else they cannot accurately reflect the range of water quality conditions in the these canals. 

# Comment ID 1011.001.007
Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County 4) EPA proposes Water Quality Criteria for South Florida Canals with the following values: (Chlorophyll-a value of 4.0 ug/l, Total Nitrogen (TN) of 1.6 mg/l, and Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.042 mg/l). Technical support documents provided state that EPA is proposing these criteria based on the 75th percentile from all available freshwater canal data from sites located in waterbody IDs (WBIDs) that have not been identified for nutrient impairment. It appears the methodology being used is one of accepting the DEP impaired water body list and then using the data from water bodies that are not on that list to establish the nutrient criteria for all state water bodies. There appears to be no attempt by EPA to evaluate as to why a particular water body made the impaired list for nutrients. In eastern Palm Beach County there are virtually no water bodies that are not on the impaired list for nutrients. Please note that not all water bodies that made the impaired list are due to high nutrient levels. However, by only using data from water bodies that are not on the impaired list will result in skewed data by having a reduced data set. The end result being that the statistically achieved average nutrient levels will be at a much lower threshold than they would be if all water bodies not impaired by nutrients were considered. 

# Comment ID 1067.001.005
Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District We also feel there are several other areas of the rule that need more time to be evaluated before this rush to judgement, based on the artificial time lines placed on you by the consent decree. One of these areas would be the canals, South Florida canals. In our experience in our inventory and of the science currently available for South Florida canals, we are not aware of any comprehensive study that allows us to know exactly what type of ecology we are trying to protect. Without this knowledge, we feel going forward with numeric nutrient criteria is premature. For example, we have not found any studies or are aware of any sort of documentation of the chlorophyll a criterion, what it is protective of, and why it's being suggested as a criterion. In addition to this rush to judgment for the rule, we feel that from our looking at the documents that are in your appendices and that -- your additional website

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4147Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals documentation, we have not found any peer review of the South Florida canal portion of this rule. We also have notfound it in your scientific advisory board draft peer review. So we feel that before you would go forward with any rulemaking, it is important to have your external scientific peer review process go forward. 

# Comment ID 1088-1.001.003
Author Name: Henry B. Organization: Broward County Proposed Numeric Criteria for TN and TP As a result of these diverse and intense efforts, the County has been able to observe long-term trends in water quality improvement. Today, the median TN and TP concentrations measured across the County's canal network and over a 1Q-year period are 1.42 mg/l and 0.024 mg/l, respectively. Broward County is confident in the effectiveness of our pollution reduction efforts and finds it perplexing that under the proposed rule numerous Broward canals would be considered impaired based on exceedance of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria and allowable expressions of frequency and duration. The EPA's proposed numeric standards and proposed measures of compliance appear narrow and not sufficiently representative of the acceptable range and expected variability in nutrient concentrations measured in healthy, well-balanced canals. Thus, despite the EPA's stated efforts to utilize a broad data set to establish an appropriate reference condition, based upon the proposed standards derived from the 75th percentile of this data set, the County can only come to the conclusion that the reference data fails to adequately represent the range of water quality supportive of existing designated uses, with the data potentially overly influenced by water quality measured in the Everglades Protection Areas (EvPA) or stations heavily influenced by EvPA see page. It is important that nutrient criteria be reflective of the fact that while canals might reflect the influence of human activities, these waterbodies can still be fully supportive of designated uses with a broad range of water quality outside of the "pristine" condition that is acceptable. Broward County urges the EPA to revisit the proposed TN and TP criteria with a greater recognition of the variability and wider range of water quality in canals capable of supporting attainment of this designated use.



# Comment ID 1270.001.006
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Finally, your statistical analysis shows a negative correlation between nutrient concentrations and chlorophyll a in canals, particularly with regard to nitrogen.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4148Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1291-1.001.004
Author Name: Brown A. Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration Finally, I would like to submit for the record a declaration by Thomas Debusk, from DB Laboratories for Case No.: 4:08­ cv-00324-RH-WCS. Mr. Debusk stated that he conducted research examining the effects of phosphorus on the biological health of large canal regions North and South of Lake Okeechobee as well as looked at factors affecting canal macroinvertebrates. He stated "There was no evidence that maintaining low TN and TP concentrations, within the ranges noted above (TP 59 to 259 ppb, TN 1.1 to 6.2 ppm), would result in healthier, more diverse macroinvertebrate communities in canals."...''Nutrients playa much less important role." He cited several other long term "studies that demonstrate the insensitivity of canal macroinvertebrate populations to nutrient levels, particularly in the range below 300 ppb TP." 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.002
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 1. EPA Regulations, 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1), require that water quality criteria be based on sound scientific rationale..., often referred to as the sound science requirement. In deriving the criteria proposed for South Florida Canals, EPA relied on the crudest form of a reference site method that ignores EPA's own guidance documents which emphasize the need to consider all influences on water quality and make some reasonable determination of adverse impacts on aquatic life caused by nutrients of concern. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.008
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 7. EPA's method of deriving the proposed criteria is statistically indefensible and not consistent with professionally accepted statistical methods. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.081
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • The approach of assigning a value of one-half the detection limit to chlorophyll a values that are below the lab

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4149Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals specified detection limit is arbitrary. The data set provided does not identify which values were computed in this manner, but based on the values provided, it appears that a significant percentage are below the detection limit and also well below the PQL. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.147
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Summary of Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals EPA has proposed TN, TP, and chlorophyll a criteria for canals classified as Class III waters under Chapter 62-302.400, F.A.C. The proposed total phosphorus (TP) criteria would not apply for canals within the Everglades Protection Area since there is an existing TP criterion of 0.010 mg/L that currently applies to that region (EPA, 2007). The proposed criteria are shown in Table 3. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that factors other than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat. DB Environmental, Inc. (DBE, 2009) has conducted work to examine the relationship between water nutrient concentrations and benthic community structure, and the relationship between habitat quality and benthic community structure. A survey of five stations along four man-made canal segments in south Florida showed a range of marginal to poor Habitat Assessment scores and impaired macroinvertebrate SCI scores. For all sites and sampling events, the SCI scores were insensitive to 6-month average TP concentrations and 6-month average TN concentrations. Physical factors known to limit macroinvertebrate community health were identified through a habitat assessment and include steep unstable channel banks, lack of riparian vegetation, long periods of stagnant water followed by short periods of high flow, widely variable water levels in canals, and displacement by exotic species. Data from this study demonstrate that maintaining low TN and TP concentrations, relative to the ranges noted above, will not result in healthier, more diverse macroinvertebrate communities in the canals. Similar results were obtained by DBE and Azurea (2007) in the Reedy Creek system in central Florida. For that work, benthic community health was monitored in two streams before and after the diversion of wastewater effluent into one of the streams. The stream receiving the wastewater discharge was altered with reduced habitat, and the other stream was in a more natural state. After the wastewater discharge was stopped nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the stream dropped significantly, but after 16 years there was only minimal change in benthic community structure, with some metrics indicating less desirable features than before the wastewater diversion. The more natural stream, in contrast, had stable, high quality benthic scores for the entire period. The conclusions included that habitat had a greater influence on local benthos than nutrient concentrations. Similarly, a study of south Florida canals by FDEP (2001) found no relationship between SCI in canals and phosphorus concentrations, but did find a positive relationship between SCI and habitat assessment scores. That work also concluded that habitat and physical factors play a much more important role in canal ecosystem health than nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.152
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4150Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals A reference condition approach requires an unimpacted reference site with which to measure deviation for other potentially impaired sites. Lacking reference or benchmark canal sites, the proposed criteria was based on the 75th percentile from all available freshwater canal data from sites located in waterbody IDs (WBIDs) that have not been identified as impaired for nutrients. It should be noted that this approach is an inference model and does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold established by the distribution of reference sites results in harm (impairment) to the aquatic life in a particular waterbody (EPA, 2010b, page 4-2). It should also be recognized that multiple factors such as water velocity, residence time, availability of the other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree cover and/or water transparency), water body morphology, and availability of suitable habitat, can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrients across waterbodies (EPA, 2010b, page 4-2). The "minimally affected reference water approach" identifies concentrations that are presumed to be protective of the waterbody because those concentrations are associated with minimally disturbed systems with healthy biological communities. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.154
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA considered chlorophyll a to be an appropriate indicator of nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of the observed seasonal flow regimes, particularly during the relatively drier winter months when flows are relatively lower and canal water residence time is relatively higher than during the wetter summer months. Also, several canals on Florida's Clean Water Act section 303(d) list had chlorophyll a cited as the parameter of concern. An assessment of the range of chlorophyll a concentrations in canals found that 12% of chlorophyll a concentration observations were 10 ug/L or higher and 5% of chlorophyll a concentration observations were 20 ug/L or higher (EPA, 2010a, page 140).

Florida currently has chlorophyll a thresholds of 20 ug/L as the numeric interpretation of its narrative nutrient criteria for freshwater streams and 11 ug/L for estuaries/open coastal waters in the Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) (Rules 62­ 303.351 and 62-303.353, F.A.C.). Thus, EPA included chlorophyll a as a nutrient criterion to protect canal aquatic life designated uses from unacceptable impacts due to excess nutrients (EPA, 2010a, page 141).



# Comment ID 1352-1.001.157
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA concluded that the 75th percentiles of the respective TN, TP, and chlorophyll a distributions would yield values that would ensure that aquatic life designated uses would be protected in south Florida canals. A reasonable choice for such a criterion was thought to be a value just above the great majority of data points. The 75th percentile was stated to represent such a point on the distribution of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a values (EPA, 2010a, page 141).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4151Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1352-1.001.168
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County It is also noted that canals nearby to Lake Okeechobee were excluded because they "might be expected to behave more like a lake than a freshwater canal." Does this mean that the proposed criteria will not apply to these canals? And how is the determination made that a canal will behave more like a lake? If the criteria are ultimately to be applied to these canals, then they should be included in the analysis. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.169
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County No analyses were presented that demonstrate lower nutrient concentrations translate to better habitat and healthier water bodies. Studies referenced above (DBE, 2007 and DBE and Azurea, 2009; FDEP 2001) strongly suggest that factors other than nutrient concentrations are of primary importance in determining biotic health in canals. An examination of physical factors that may influence canal health should be conducted. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.170
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The 75th percentiles of chlorophyll a, TP, and TN concentrations for the final data set for unimpaired WBIDs were 4.0 ug/L, 0.042 mg/L, and 1.6 mg/L, respectively and are the proposed endpoints for nutrient impairment. These values were corroborated using other analyses as described above. The 75th percentile is an arbitrary limit and is not strictly scientifically justifiable. Additional technical rationale should be given for selecting the 75th percentile as the standard. Canals may have very different characteristics. They vary greatly in dimensions, purpose, flow controls (gravity, control structure, pump), depth to groundwater, and surrounding basins. Assuming that water quality will continue to be a proposed target, this variability should be considered when setting nutrient criteria. Also, the current state threshold for chlorophyll a Class 3 freshwater is 20 ug/L. The proposed 4.0 ug/L limit for canals is very low compared to the current criterion and it is recommended that the canal criterion for chlorophyll be 20 ug/L . In addition, we reiterate our previously stated concern that the proposed canal criterion is more stringent than the most stringent lake criteria of 6.0 ug/L for clear, acidic lakes. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.058

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4152Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Summary of Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals EPA has proposed numeric nutrient criteria for canals classified as Class III waters under Chapter 62-302.400, F.A.C. The proposed total phosphorus (TP) criteria would not apply for canals within the Everglades Protection Area since there is an existing TP criterion of 0.010 mg/L that currently applies to that region (EPA, 2007). The proposed criteria are shown in Table 1. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that factors other than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat. DB Environmental, Inc. (DBE, 2009) has conducted work to examine the relationship between water nutrient concentrations and benthic community structure, and the relationship between habitat quality and benthic community structure. A survey of five stations along four man-made canal segments in south Florida showed a range of marginal to poor Habitat Assessment scores and impaired macroinvertebrate SCI scores. For all sites and sampling events, the SCI scores were insensitive to 6-month average TP concentrations and 6- month average TN concentrations. Physical factors known to limit macroinvertebrate community health were identified through a habitat assessment and include steep unstable channel banks, lack of riparian vegetation, long periods of stagnant water followed by short periods of high flow, widely variable water levels in canals, and displacement by exotic species. Data from this study demonstrate that maintaining low TN and TP concentrations, relative to the ranges noted above, will not result in healthier, more diverse macroinvertebrate communities in the canals. Similar results were obtained by DBE (2007) in the Reedy Creek system in central Florida. For that work, benthic community health was monitored in two streams before and after the diversion of wastewater effluent into one of the streams. The stream receiving the wastewater discharge was altered with reduced habitat, and the other stream was in a more natural state. After the wastewater discharge was stopped nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the stream dropped significantly, but after 16 years there was only minimal change in benthic community structure, with some metrics indicating less desirable features than before the wastewater diversion. The more natural stream, in contrast, had stable, high quality benthic scores for the entire period. The conclusions included that habitat had a greater influence on local benthos than nutrient concentrations. Similarly, a study of south Florida canals by FDEP (2001) found no relationship between SCI in canals and phosphorus concentrations, but did find a positive relationship between SCI and habitat assessment scores. That work also concluded that habitat and physical factors play a much more important role in canal ecosystem health than nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.063
Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4153Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners A reference condition approach requires an unimpacted reference site with which to measure deviation for other potentially impaired sites. Lacking reference or benchmark canal sites, the proposed criteria was based on the 75th percentile from all available freshwater canal data from sites located in waterbody IDs (WBIDs) that have not been identified as impaired for nutrients. It should be noted that this approach is an inference model and does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold established by the distribution of reference sites results in harm (impairment) to the aquatic life in a particular waterbody (EPA, 2010b, page 4-2). It should also be recognized that multiple factors such as water velocity, residence time, availability of the other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree cover and/or water transparency), water body morphology, and availability of suitable habitat, can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrients across waterbodies (EPA, 2010b, page 4-2). The "minimally affected reference water approach" identifies concentrations that are presumed to be protective of the waterbody because those concentrations are associated with minimally disturbed systems with healthy biological communities. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.065
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA considered chlorophyll a to be an appropriate indicator of nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of the observed seasonal flow regimes, particularly during the relatively drier winter months when flows are relatively lower and canal water residence time is relatively higher than during the wetter summer months. Also, several canals on Florida's Clean Water Act section 303(d) list had chlorophyll a cited as the parameter of concern. An assessment of the range of chlorophyll a concentrations in canals found that 12% of chlorophyll a concentration observations were 10 ug/L or higher and 5% of chlorophyll a concentration observations were 20 ug/L or higher (EPA, 2010a, page 140). Florida currently has chlorophyll a thresholds of 20 ug/L as the numeric interpretation of its narrative nutrient criteria for freshwater streams and 11 ug/L for estuaries/open coastal waters in the Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) (Rules 62­ 303.351 and 62-303.353, F.A.C.). Thus, EPA included chlorophyll a as a nutrient criterion to protect canal aquatic life designated uses from unacceptable impacts due to excess nutrients (EPA, 2010a, page 141). 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.068
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA concluded that the 75th percentiles of the respective TN, TP, and chlorophyll a distributions would yield values that would ensure that aquatic life designated uses would be protected in south Florida canals. A reasonable choice for such a criterion was thought to be a value just above the great majority of data points. The 75th percentile was stated to represent such a point on the distribution of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a values (EPA, 2010a, page 141).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4154Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1355-2.001.075
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Data Used to Develop the Criteria A large amount of water quality data from a variety of sources was used in developing the canal standards. Over a million data points from over 2,000 sites were obtained. Agencies contributing data included South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), FDEP, Broward, and Miami- Dade counties. After a multi-step screening process that removed obvious outliers, records without matching chlorophyll a - nutrient data, mis-labeled entries, etc. a total of 1,622 entries remained and were the basis for the analyses. Of those, 258 had matching chlorophyll a, TN, and TP data. The data were further screened to remove all information from impaired WBIDs. Data from the west region (Big Cypress), the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), and the east coast were analyzed separately and together. Some of the data used to derive the canal criterion were taken from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. Data from the west coast region (Big Cypress), the EAA, and the east coast region were analyzed separately and together, which provided a reasonable spatial representation for south Florida. About two-thirds of the samples were collected between 1999 and 2009, which covers a wide range of hydrologic conditions. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.077
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners No analyses were presented that demonstrate lower nutrient concentrations translate to better habitat and healthier water bodies. Studies referenced above (DBE, 2007 and 2009; FDEP 2001) strongly suggest that factors other than nutrient concentrations are of primary importance in determining biotic health in canals. An examination of physical factors that may influence canal health should be conducted. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.078
Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4155Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The 75th percentiles of chlorophyll a, TP, and TN concentrations for the final data set for unimpaired WBIDs were 4.0 ug/L, 0.042 mg/L, and 1.6 mg/L, respectively and are the proposed endpoints for nutrient impairment. These values were corroborated using other analyses as described above. The 75th percentile is an arbitrary limit and is not strictly scientifically justifiable. Additional technical rationale should be given for selecting the 75th percentile as the standard. Canals may have very different characteristics. They vary greatly in dimensions, purpose, flow controls (gravity, control structure, pump), depth to groundwater, and surrounding basins. Assuming that water quality will continue to be a proposed target, this variability should be considered when setting nutrient criteria. Also, the current state threshold for Class 3 freshwater is 20 ug/L. The proposed 4.0 ug/L limit for canals is very low with respect to the current criterion and it is recommended that the canal criterion for chlorophyll be 20 ug/L. 

# Comment ID 1362-1.001.006
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute E. Criteria for Canals For canals in south Florida, EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, TN, and TP criteria that EPA asserts are based on levels found in canals that are meeting designated uses with respect to nutrients. The proposed numeric criteria for canals, as with those for streams, are not based on a defined relationship between nutrient levels and use impairment. As a result, it is inevitable that some canals will "fail" the new criteria even though uses are fully supported. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.006
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) III. NUTRIENT RULE FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS EPA relies on the reference site approach to derive the numeric values. This approach and EPA's methodology are arbitrary and capricious. The reference site approach has no link or verification to the biological response in the water body. Furthermore, EPA fails to follow its own technical guidance documents on how to properly derive water quality standards using the reference site approach. EPA's data selection methods are scientifically flawed and its reliance on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) impaired water bodies list is misplaced. As discussed below in more detail, the Nutrient Rule and its application to south Florida canals is arbitrary and capricious.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4156Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.007
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) A. Reference Site Approach in the EAA is Arbitrary and Capricious The reference site approach used in the Nutrient Rule does not support a causal link between the proposed criteria and biological responses in the EAA. This lack of causality is further intensified in the EAA because those canals were specifically constructed and designed for flood control and water supply purposes. As with most canals in south Florida, EAA canals are part of a highly managed surface water system. Many of these canals were created for the sole purpose of water supply and flood control. This purpose significantly affects a canal's response to nutrients. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) operates and controls various canals in the EAA and throughout most of south Florida. These canals make up the Central and South Florida Control Project (Project). This Project, originally authorized by Congress in 1948, has dramatically altered the landscape and water resources of south Florida. Because of this interrelated and unique water management system that exists in south Florida, EPA should have accounted for these characteristics in deriving its numeric criteria. Instead, EPA, arbitrarily, and without explanation, relies on the derivation methodology used for natural rivers and streams. The aquatic life in canals is not the same as in natural flowing rivers and streams. These highly managed water bodies do not and will not support the same level of biological indicators as a natural water body. [DeBusk, 2010]. As acknowledged in previous EPA guidance documents, the physical and specific characteristics of a water body must be accounted for and analyzed when setting numeric water quality criteria. [EPA, National Nutrient Strategy, 1998; EPA, Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers and Streams, July 2000]. This was not done in the Nutrient Rule. Instead, EPA combined data from various disparate sites, resulting in extremely large ranges of reference concentrations. Despite subdividing the data by regions, observing nutrient concentrations for unimpaired canals ranging in the several fold, and reference concentrations for Florida streams varying 80-100 fold, EPA persisted in developing one value for all of south Florida canals. EPA's use of a "one size fits all" approach by setting the criteria using the 75th percentile with no biological verification, is arbitrary. EPA's reference site approach also abandons its long standing position that the numeric criteria must be linked to the designated use to be protected. In this rule, there is no link, causal or otherwise, between the numeric values and the use to be protected. EPA did not establish any statistically significant relationship between its chosen values and the resulting biological condition in the canals. Because of this failure to establish a causal link, EPA could not and did not establish a threshold concentration that is protective of the designated uses. Without this threshold, it is unclear if the values proposed will result in any protection. It is well known that healthy balances of flora and fauna occur in oligotrophic and eutrophic systems, each with varying nutrient concentrations. [DeBusk, 2010]. Many statements along these lines were further discussed at the DEP April 7, 2010, Technical Advisory Committee on EPA's Numeric Nutrient Criteria. The transcripts of this meeting have been included in the Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record for this Rule. Within the EAA, many canals are meeting their designated use despite higher levels of nutrients than those in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4157Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Nutrient Rule. As discussed above, the CWA's authority is based on protection of designated uses. The purpose of setting water quality standards is to prevent an imbalance of natural flora and fauna and not to return these water bodies to predevelopment conditions. Without an understanding of what nutrient concentrations will prevent imbalance, EPA cannot finalize this Rule. To do otherwise, exceeds EPA's congressional authority in the CWA, resulting in a rule that is arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.008
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts ii. EPA did not Rely on Sufficient Data in Proposing Criteria EPA derived the proposed numeric nutrient criteria by assessing data for the selected reference sites over a six year period (2004-2009). After calculating the geometric means for total phosphorus and total nitrogen, the results were separated spatially into the four regions created by EPA. EPA then calculated the 75th percentile of geometric means to propose numeric criteria for each region. Because EPA's reference site selection process was arbitrary, the data sets used by EPA were insufficient. An average of only two nutrient measurements over the entire six year period was used to generate the geometric mean. In many cases, the data sets used to calculate the geometric mean were based on a single measurement. Basing the proposed stream criteria on very few measurements fails to factor in the temporal variability of the systems. Simply stated, the data available for the reference sites EPA selected was not sufficient to characterize the nutrient regime at those sites for a single year much less to characterize the sites over a six year period. EPA's data is not representative of anything and cannot be the basis for numeric criteria because such an approach is not based on sound scientific principles. You need a certain amount of data to statistically derive criteria with a level of confidence and to sufficiency prove impairment. One or two measurement is not sufficient to have any level of scientific confidence and fails to account for seasonal variability. 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.008
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute For canals in south Florida, EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, TN, and TP criteria that EPA asserts are based on levels found in canals that are meeting their designated uses with respect to nutrients. The proposed numeric criteria for canals, as with the stream criteria, are not based on any defined relationship between nutrient levels and use impairment. As a result, EPA's proposed criterion would regulate canals that are not impaired. EPA has presented no information that would suggest that its proposed criterion for southern canals is necessary to protect their designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.071

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4158Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 1. EPA has not demonstrated cause-and-effect or identified an impairment threshold for these waters. The central premise of water quality criteria are that a "cause-and-effect" relationship between the pollutant and use protection needs has been documented. National Guidelines at 3; 40 C.F.R. 131.2. This relationship provides the State assurance that compliance with the applicable numeric objective will achieve its intended purpose. Rather than present information or analyses on the degree of water quality necessary to protect uses in canals, EPA simply selected "minimally impacted" canals and presumed that the water quality in those waters was necessary to be achieved in all other canals. EPA does not document that aquatic life uses are actually impacted by nutrients in waters not considered "minimally impacted." This approach provides no objective basis to conclude whether or not such water quality criteria proposed are actually necessary to protect uses. Absent such information, there is no objective basis to determine that attainment of the proposed numeric criteria is either necessary or appropriate. This critical component of criteria derivation needs to be addressed before nutrient criteria can be proposed for these waters. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.076
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The proposed numeric criteria for canals, as with the stream criteria, are not based on any defined relationship between nutrient levels and use impairment. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4212, 4214. Data from "minimally impacted" canals were used in this analysis. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4212. EPA selected chlorophyll a, nitrogen and phosphorus levels independently based upon a statistical evaluation that used the 75th percentile of the data. As discussed below, this approach is not scientifically defensible and does not produce criteria based on the effect of the pollutant concentration on aquatic species or human health. Therefore, the approach should be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.008
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District III. South Florida Water Management District Response to USEPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Canals
A. Sound Scientific and Regulatory Foundations Are Not Provided for Protective Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) in South Florida Canals by USEPA In the USEPA proposed rule, there is no quantified linkage between nutrients and impaired biology in south Florida canals, and no evidence is provided that canal ecosystems are even sensitive to total nitrogen (TN) or total phosphorus

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4159Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals (TP). As a result of these scientific weaknesses, the District cannot support any conclusion that these nutrients will adversely affect the designated uses of canals in south Florida. The USEPA does not provide a valid regulatory connection between the NNC values and achievement of the designated use of the waterbody, the heart of the Clean Water Act. Without a proper foundation, it is entirely possible that the State of Florida could spend millions of dollars and many years of effort on nutrient controls that would have little or no measureable benefit to the designated uses of canals. Simply stated, USEPA can provide no evidence to demonstrate what recreation or a healthy population of fish and wildlife are for canals and thereby cannot develop criteria to support them, particularly given the uncertainties inherent in their highly managed states and design. Similarly, no data are provided that link chlorophyll a (Chla) concentrations to designated uses in south Florida canals, and even if USEPA could furnish some such evidence, they would need to separate Chla generated from within the canal from that imported during periods of discharges from upstream systems, particularly lakes. Additionally, USEPA notes that TP and Chla are correlated, but then fails to account for their mutual chemistry. Much of the TP measured in water samples with significant concentrations of algae is derived from the chlorophyll-containing algae, so naturally the two parameters will be correlated. However, due to the complexity of canal flow patterns, the regression of TP and Chla is weak and cannot be used for any regulatory purposes unless it is corrected for this lack of independence, seasonal flow patterns and for the proportion imported into the canal. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.010
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District For example, canals may cross different landscape types, as noted above, and data being summarized for a single threshold number using an assumption of a single statistical distribution can be invalid because multiple distributions may be present in the underlying data. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.013
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District C. Statistical Flaws in the Derivation Process: Canals As stated in Section III of this document the District does not believe the inference model used by USEPA is appropriate for setting numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida Canals. Beyond the global concern of the methodology not being appropriate, the following comments on focused solely on concerns we have the statistical methodologies of the Canal section. (I) Distributional Assumptions: (a) Log-normal distribution of data

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4160Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

USEPA assumes that all the water quality data used in their assessments are log-normally distributed. The document does not provide any evidence that this assumption is correct. In other words, there are no formalized tests (outside of an occasional plot) to support/validate this assumption. Normal probability and cumulative distribution plots are helpful in identifying severe skewness and kurtosis. However, more formal tests should be used to account for cases where the departure from normality is not obvious. This is especially true when setting strict compliance criteria. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.019
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District B. The Volume of Scientific Studies (Especially in Ecology) Available for Canals is Much Lower Than Those Found for Other South Florida Ecosystems (e.g., the Everglades Marsh Systems) Determining the appropriate protective numeric nutrient criteria is premature if it is not clear what comprises the ecological community which is being protected. The District's recent 'Canal Science Inventory' (see District Attachment 1) has clearly shown the lack of canal ecological studies as compared to other systems in Florida (e.g., the Everglades, see '2010 South Florida Environmental Report; see District Attachment 2). FDEP's own Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consistently struggled with the lack of available information on the ecological components of canals and how nutrients may or may not have an impact. In fact many of the TAC's conversations often would focus on what is the appropriate designated use of these conveyance systems and what a canal biological community should look like. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.024
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District E. Setting Regional Criteria Based on Statistical Analyses of Diverse Environments is Invalid Nutrient levels are highly variable (site specific), and USEPA provides no basis for the establishment of reference sites upon which to examine designated uses and potential impairment. The reference condition approach used for canals and the regional/ecoregional scheme for streams also ignores the lack of evidence that nutrients are key stressors in canals or streams (see above), leading to the high potential for unnecessary protection with little or no net benefit to the environment. As stressed by USEPA reviewers, both their Scientific Advisory Board and reviewers of the proposed rule (Attachments 3 and 4), there must be more information on stressor-response and impairment before any criterion can be justified for canals. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.028
Author Name: Wehle C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4161Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: South Florida Water Management District I. USEPA Has No Documented Peer Review of the South Florida Canal Numeric Nutrient Criteria In the District's review of the USEPA's rule and supporting documentation (on USEPA website: Docket Folder containing Supporting Technical Documents), we have not found any reference on scientific peer review of the South Florida Canal nutrient watershed criteria or methodology used to create those criteria. In addition, we have not observed scientific peer review for the alternatives reviewed by USEPA for the South Florida Canal nutrient watershed. The District requests any information that USEPA may have gathered as a scientific peer review for the South Florida Canal nutrient watershed. If no such peer review has been undertaken, the District strongly suggests such a review by USEPA's own SAB, the NAS, NRC, or other recognized body of experts. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.029
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (b) Annual geometric mean is not representative for canals Canals behave as streams when the water is flowing (mostly during the wet season) and as lakes/reservoirs when water is not flowing (mostly during the dry season). Therefore the annual geometric mean (for Chla, TP and TN) used by USEPA to establish nutrient criteria may not be representative of the actual conditions for the waterbody since canals may not behave as either category (stream or lake) on an equal basis. Analysis of a certain year and across years should be done separately for flowing and not flowing regimes in canals. Flow weighted means rather than annual geometric mean Chla/TN/TP concentrations might be more appropriate for analysis. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.030
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (c) Averaging over an entire waterbody is not representative for the canals crossing multiple regions. Some canals cross 2-3 landscape regions and annual geometric mean over entire waterbody (canal WBID) might mask natural differences between different ecoregions. The table and the graph below present the TN annual geometric mean for the waterbody "3245" for the interval 1996 through 2009. This canal crosses two ecoregions: HESEA and SEA. TN annual geometric mean averaged over the stations along for the entire waterbody is compared to TN annual geometric mean averaged over the stations placed in ecoregions HESEA and SEA separately. Note in the graph that each ecoregions appear to differ from the average over the entire canal. In addition when the annual geomeans for the entire canal and the ecoregions are compared, they were all found to be significantly different statistically.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4162Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.031
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (d) Improper use of a single distribution to determine a percentile Using a single distribution (of Chla, TN or TP respectively) to determine a percentile as the threshold for chlorophyll a and nutrients may be incorrect because different distributions may exist between different ecoregions. We used the canal data set provided by USEPA and arithmetic averages of the annual geometric means were calculated by ecoregion for Chla, TN and TP. These averages are provided below and clearly show that differences exist between these means across ecoregions. The tables suggest that the data may not come from a single distribution and such differences need to be investigated. Also the disparity in the number of records and the period of records between the nutrient and Chla datasets might produce a bias in the analysis. Original comment letter contains additional information on canals in Table 3: Arithmetic averages of the annual geometric means calculated by ecoregion. (page 43) from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.033
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (2) Percentiles (a) Percentile calculations The use of percentiles generated from lognormal distributions to derive chlorophyll a and nutrient criteria is unsubstantiated because documentation has not been provided showing that the data follow a lognormal distribution (i.e., no formalized test to prove that log transformation normalized data). It would be more appropriate to simply calculate the percentiles from the available data, instead of generating them based on summary statistics (mean and standard deviation) of an assumed distribution of the data. In other words, use the available data and determine desired percentiles. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.034
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4163Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals (b) Regional limits for chlorophyll a and nutrients It appears that different regions were used to calculate the 75th percentiles for chlorophyll a, Total P and Total N. It is not clear from the document whether the preponderance of the data comes from one particular region or if the data are approximately evenly distributed across the regions. This could result in a region being under/over represented in the data. It appears from the map (Figure 4-3), that certain canals may be over represented (due to the close proximity of sampling sites along the same canal) while other canals are underrepresented. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.035
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (3) Setting Criteria (a) Unimpaired canals It is not clear why the 75th percentile is being used to set a nutrient criterion from unimpaired canal data. This means that 25% of the "clean" canals do not meet criteria. The nutrient criteria should be set to maximum nutrient level using "unimpaired" canal data sets. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.036
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District (b) Chlorophyll a criterion The Chla data set contains approximately 5-fold fewer stations than the nutrient data sets. Based on the geometric mean and 75th percentile, it would be a safe assumption to say that some stations (~25%?) in the EVPA would not meet the criterion. The chlorophyll a criterion based on the 75th percentile is at (or within) the PQL range. The Districts freshwater Chla MDL is 1.0 ug/L. Collier County has an MDL level for Chla at 3.0 ug/L. It appears that the statistical analyses performed for chlorophyll a may be highly skewed by data with concentrations between the MDL and PQL. Is it the contention of USEPA that Chla criterion should be set at practically the method detection limit? USEPA has categorized several District canals (e.g., C-44, C-43) as streams rather than canals. Both of these canals carry Lake Okeechobee water to tide. Since these canals have been classified as streams, there is no proposed Chla criterion. What makes these canals different from other canals (such as C-51) that discharge to tide and not to the EVPA? In canals, the relationship Chla vs nutrients is hard to define and quantify. Chlorophyll a can be produced within the canal when discharges are less frequent and of smaller volume. During periods of flow, chlorophyll a will be transported from other regions and therefore no correlation with the nutrient concentrations would be expected, just as it was not found in streams. Based on the USEPAs analyses, they realized that the correlation between waterbody annual geometric mean chlorophyll a vs nutrients (TN/TP) was weak and was not used in the determination of nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4164Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

(4) Linear Regression Assumptions The District has the same concerns with the USEPAs linear regression assumptions for South Florida Canals as stated in this section for Lakes. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.037
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Additionally, USEPA supplied no justification for using the 75th percentile of the reference site data. If USEPAs selection process is sound, then the 90th or even 95th percentile could be used to provide a reasonable margin of safety. Using the 75th percentile, forces up to 25% of canals in the reference set to become impaired when split off at the 75th percentile and to require unnecessary regulation. In addition, the use of an alternative percentile analyses (e.g. 25th) using an "all canals" approach is not justified for developing criteria for canals. The problems with this methodology have been well documented by FDEP and its TAC. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.006
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport EPA's Chlorophyll a Criteria for South Florida Canals is not appropriate

• Not clear what biological community the criteria are designed to protect 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.015
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• No relationship between proposed criteria levels and biological response in canals 

# Comment ID 1565-1.001.003
Author Name: Wedgworth G. Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida We believe that the proposed criteria are arbitrary and capricious. The reference site approach in setting water quality

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4165Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals standards is fundamentally flawed especially as it relates to dealing with canal water in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). The influence of Biscayne Aquifer groundwater interactions on ambient nutrient concentrations of many selected "reference" sites is not defined, but the resulting distributions of nutrient and chlorophyll concentrations for these reference canal sites are clearly different than regions where limited groundwater interface takes place, like the EAA. To use groundwater in the Biscayne Aquifer as a reference site for South Florida completely ignores the differences in soil types, canal hydrology, plant communities and uses of the water bodies. EPA acknowledges that South Florida is composed of four sub-regions yet chose a criteria development method that completely ignored the subregions. The significant differences in soils, geology and surface water hydrology demands that different criteria be developed for each sub-region. Further, EPA has arbitrarily treated canals in South Florida differently than canals in the rest of the state even though they have the same designated use. This has led EPA to propose a phosphorus criterion that is twice as stringent for South Florida canals compared to northern canals. This has also resulted in South Florida canals having a chlorophyll criterion while canals in the remainder of the state do not have such a criterion. EPA has also failed to distinguish the designated uses of man-made conveyance canals from natural rivers or streams leading to erroneous conclusions. A nitrogen criterion for water bodies in the EAA where the soil has naturally occurring levels of nitrogen 3-5 times greater than the proposed criteria is arbitrary. EPA has no evidence that nitrogen causes impairment in south Florida canals and downstream water bodies. According to EPA's own reports (USEPA 2010 and EAA TMDL 2007) "despite the elevated concentrations of nitrogen that occur in EAA surface waters, there is no evidence that this nitrogen has adverse effects in EAA canals or in downstream waters of the Everglades....EPA is unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances of flora and fauna in Class iii canals within the EAA." Nitrogen release from the soils is primarily the result of the nature of organic soils and secondarily the result of water management practices in the region that allow the land to be used for urban or agricultural development. There are no toxic effects related to total nitrogen nor does it cause biological impairment. The statistical experts retained by the EAA-EPD have found that if EPA followed its own methodology, type one error occurs 60 to 100% of the time at EPA's own reference sites. DEP has found that Florida 's most pristine lakes, rivers and stream fail to meet the criteria 80% of the time. EPA has failed to recognize and account for th e fact th at nutrient content does not drive the biology or adversely affect the designated use of a canal-water level, velocity of flow and habitat are the primary drivers of ecological health. The canal biological work conducted by Dr. Torn DeBusk for the EAA-EPD shows that there is no negative biological response when phosphorus levels are between 50-350 ppb in South Florida canals. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.008
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection EPA's Alternative Criteria options for South Florida Geographic Areas EPA used three alternative methods for exploring criteria for South Florida Canals. Where possible, the criteria need to be as closely linked to a biological endpoint. The following table compares EPA's three approaches.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4166Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Original comment letter contains additional information in a graph that cannot be read on page 8 of the pdf. See original comment letter. In reviewing the Technical Support Document, we note that EPA evaluated the preferred Stressor-Response approach using paired chlorophyll and nutrient data and linear regression methods. Using this approach, the regression model explained 49% of the variance in the data for phosphorus. Since this level of model fit is comparable to the fit found in the lakes evaluation, which was used to develop criteria, it is not clear to us why EPA chose to reject the use of this method to derive a protective phosphorus criterion for this area. The TSD also notes that FDEP is in the process ofestablishing a WQBEL for STA discharges downstream of the EAA. The 0.124 mg/l criterion derived using the stressorresponse is within the variability of numbers being considered to be protective of downstream waters by FDEP in that process. Unfortunately, the relationship between chlorophyll and nitrogen in south Florida canals is not sufficiently strong (the regression model for nitrogen explained only 16.5 % of the variance) to derive a total nitrogen criterion by this method. This is not surprising given that the U.S. EPA noted that they were "...unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances in flora or fauna in Class III canals within the EAA." In fact, in their proposed TMDL for dissolved oxygen and nutrients in the Everglades (EPA, 2007), EPA did not establish any TMDLs for nitrogen for the EAA or EPA.

Given the lack of relationship between chlorophyll and nitrogen, EPA chose to use a reference canal approach. In identifying reference canals, EPA chose those canals represented by WBIDs that were not contained on the State's Clean Water Act 303(d) list. FDEP does not recommend the use of the 303(d) list as a guide in identifying reference canals in south Florida. In lieu of using the 303(d) list, the Department recommends that EPA explore other water quality or biological characteristics that may indicate use attainment and apply them specifically to South Florida Canals as a screening tool. A similar exercise was conducted for West Coast canals by FDEP's TMDL program. Through the public process used by the FDEP to develop the Gordon River TMDL (FDEP, 2008), a series of freshwater stations were identified with land use characteristics that demonstrated relatively low impacts from urban development and could therefore be considered to have water chemistry representative of "natural condition". The data set, which included 13 stations, each of which had 4-7 years of data from 2001-2008, represented 103 and 99 station-years of data for phosphorus and nitrogen, respectively. Since these sites represent relatively pristine conditions, the majority of the nutrients in these sites results from the predominant wetland soils in the area and is probably approaching natural background conditions, particularly for nitrogen. This can be seen in the nitrogen data, which are almost entirely organic (see below pie chart). Original comment letter contains additional information in a graph that cannot be read on page 11 of the pdf. See original comment letter. When using the reference canal approach, FDEP encourages EPA to consider the characteristics of the water quality data set when choosing a percentile of the distribution to represented the criteria magnitude. These characteristics include the amount of data in the distribution and the species of nitrogen in the distribution. In the Gordon River example, since the nitrogen condition appears to represent a near natural background condition (largely organic), that would suggest that a higher percentile of the data set, such as the 90th, could be chosen in order to avoid an inordinately high false positive rate.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4167Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1688-1.001.012
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection EPA solicited comment specifically on the selection of criteria parameters for TN, TP, and chlorophyll a; development of criteria for Class III canals across south Florida; and the conclusion that the proposed criteria for Class III canals are protective of designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients." As noted in our prior comment, the proposed chlorophyll a criterion is not supported by any known data or scientific literature. As also noted previously, the stressor-response model value for phosphorus is technically more defensible and preferable to that derived by the distributional approach, but a chlorophyll a endpoint is still needed. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.013
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Abstract: EPA has recognized that the South Florida Canals are unique in character and contain their own aquatic life expectations. There is also a difference in both biological and chemical expectations related to geographic location within South Florida that needs to be taken into account. As you move towards the coastal areas, the chemical makeup of the South Florida Canals is much more influenced by groundwater and wetland interactions. Additionally, the proposed Chlorophyll a criterion should not be applied to South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1695-1.001.009
Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Canals: The methodology for the development of a chlorophyll a and associated total phosphorus and total nitrogen values for canals were similar to that used for streams. It appeared that stream condition indices (SCI) of 40 or greater were used, similarly to those used for streams. We do not believe that this is an appropriate method, as canals do not support the same biological community as do natural streams, and are probably not comparable. We suggest that the nutrient criteria for canals be re-evaluated. 

# Comment ID 1715-1.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4168Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District EPA's reference site approach does not support a causal link between the criteria and a biological response in the EAA canals. This lack of causality is further intensified in the EAA because the canals were specifically constructed and designed for flood control and water supply purposes. As acknowledged in previous EPA guidance documents, the physical and specific characteristics of a water body must be accounted for and analyzed when setting numeric water quality criteria. This was not done in this rule. In fact, EPA used a "one size fits all" approach by setting the criteria using the 75th percentile with no biological verification. Such an approach is arbitrary. Within the EAA, many canals are meeting their designated use despite higher levels of nutrients than those proposed in the Nutrient Rule. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.011
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District EAA Soils Contain Naturally High Concentrations of Nitrogen The NNC Rule proposed by USEPA for Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) canals indicate a maximum TN concentration of 1.6 mg/L. This is an arbitrary and capricious value for the EAA. EAA soils have naturally elevated concentrations of nitrogen relative to other regions of the state that are reflected in surface waters. Achieving the proposed concentration is not only an unrealistic goal but, more importantly, will not provide additional protection for EAA canals or downstream resources. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.017
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Selective Nature of the Data Set The data selection procedures used by USEPA were flawed for a number of reasons that include an inadequate database of water quality samples for the region and failure to examine all available data. Furthermore, despite starting the effort with a very large data set, the selective process used by USEPA to eliminate "questionable" data resulted in a very small data set that was biased and did not adequately represent the full range of natural variability experienced in otherwise healthy aquatic systems within the ecoregion.

• The FDEP's 303(d) impaired waters list was used improperly, as the basis of a regulatory process, to declare that waters were impaired without verification (based on biological data) to determine whether impairment of designated use was actually present. These waters were arbitrarily excluded from the data set.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4169Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

• The USEPA analysis arbitrarily excluded waters from consideration that were impaired due to factors other than nutrients.

• The USEPA failed to include significant amounts of data collected by FDEP, the USGS and other sources. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.018
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Inappropriate Use of Impaired Waters (303d) List to Develop Regulatory Criteria. USEPA applied the impaired waters 303(d) list as a means to exclude data in a manner that was inconsistent with FDEP's implementation procedures. The 303(d) list does not indicate that nitrogen and phosphorus are the reason for impairment unless "nutrients" are specifically identified as the cause. It is FDEP's practice to make this determination at the time when a TMDL is developed, not at the time nutrients are identified as a possible cause of impairment for purposes of the 303(d) list. Including nitrogen and phosphorus in the comment section of the 303(d) list is not a determination of impairment. (Communication with Jan Mandrup-Polson, Senior Staff Member of FDEP's group administering the TMDL program). Only three water body segments ("WBIDs") in the EAA are identified in FDEP's 303(d) list as "Impaired" for nutrients. In each WBID this determination was based only on data reflecting levels of chlorophyll that exceeded the Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) threshold of 20ug/L in only one year. In only two of these WBIDs (WEST PALM BEACH CANAL and EAST BEACH) was nitrogen identified as a possible cause and then only because of the ratio of phosphorus to nitrogen. While it is highly unlikely that nitrogen explains chlorophyll levels above 20ug/L, that determined will be made when a TMDL is developed for these two WBIDs.

• The decision by USEPA to exclude data from waters on FDEP's 303(d) list that were identified as exceeding chlorophyll levels of 20ug/L, without the verification that these levels of chlorophyll were the result of nitrogen and phosphorus levels or that chlorophyll is having adverse effects on fish and wildlife or recreation, was not based on scientific evidence and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.019
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Non-Nutrient Parameters Used to Declare Impairment and Exclude Data

• Data from sites that were declared as impaired based on criteria other than nutrients were eliminated from the EPA evaluation, thus reducing the range of natural variability that would otherwise be expected to occur (see discussions in DB Environmental 2010).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4170Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

• USEPA assumed that sites that were impaired due to low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) were likely to be impaired by nutrients, reasoning that elevated levels of nutrients could result in excessive algal growth and cause depressed oxygen concentrations during the night. USEPA made this assumption despite concluding that low concentrations of dissolved oxygen could occur due to other natural factors, including the presence of organic soils and seepage of groundwater into canals. The assumption that all sites impaired due to low oxygen concentrations were also impaired by nutrients was arbitrary, because USEPA has no science to support this assumption. The assumption resulted in a reduction of the number of stations considered, insufficient representation of the range of geographic areas, ecological conditions, and overall range of values included in the analysis, and impacts on the statistical validity of results. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.020
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Data Screening Resulted in a Dataset that was Biased and Not Representative The proposed criteria rely on the distribution of values for TN, TP and chlorophyll from sites within the South Florida region, following an arbitrary screening and data reduction process. Screening criteria reduced the dataset used for deriving the distributions. These screening criteria included using prior assessments of nutrient impairment, while the proposal also argues that the existing assessment methodology was inappropriate. USEPA used existing water quality assessments and identified canals that have been determined to be impaired for nutrients. Data for those canals were excluded from the larger data set in order to create a set of data representing canals attaining the designated use of aquatic life, according to FDEP's assessment decisions. For further information, please refer to USEPA's TSD for Florida's Inland Waters, Chapter 4: Methodology for Deriving USEPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals (USEPA 2010a). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.021
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Failure to Consider All Available Chlorophyll Data USEPA apparently failed to consider additional data for the region that were readily available. The Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database, compiled and maintained by FDEP for use in the assessment of water bodies for the state's TMDL program, contains a substantial amount of verified and usable chlorophyll data for Class III canals in the Everglades region. However, there was no indication in the data acquisition and screening methodology presented in the USEPA Technical Support document that USEPA considered using this data source. We conducted a trial search and screening of IWR data, which yielded a "short list" of 385 stations containing 10,405 chlorophyll observations. After removal of stations that were already represented in the USEPA chlorophyll data set, there were 326 IWR stations

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4171Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals remaining, with 8290 chlorophyll observations. A comparison of USEPA-selected chlorophyll monitoring stations to the screened data obtained from the IWR database illustrates the relatively poor representation of many parts of the Everglades region (particularly the EAA) by the USEPA stations (Figure 1). Even if our screening was not as rigorous as that performed by USPEA, it is clear that numerous additional canal stations with chlorophyll data were available from FDEP, and possibly other sources, for use by USEPA for criteria development. Further discussion of this issue and examples of data omitted are provided in the affidavit and paper submitted by DB Environmental (2010). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.022
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Errors of Omission of EAA Data in Selection of "Unimpaired" Data Set Failure to Include Data from the S-8 Basin in the EAA in Regional Analyses . USEPA failed to recognize that the S-8 Basin was not listed as impaired for nutrients by FDEP and therefore should have been included in the list of reference canals. The USEPA analysis of reference water bodies failed to include significant amounts of eligible data. Among those, the S-8 Basin was erroneously excluded in its entirety from the analyses. Within the EAA, data sets for several watersheds were excluded based on impairments that were not nutrient related. These omissions resulted in a skewed numerical baseline for the derivation of the proposed criteria. An alternate set of final values was derived by reapplying the USEPA's analysis methodology with the inclusion of these omitted data values (see below). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Figure 1. Location of chlorophyll monitoring stations and distribution of associated data used by USEPA for canal nutrient criteria development (right). Note the paucity of representative data points for the EAA (just south and southeast of Lake Okeechobee). Spatial depiction of additional data that we obtained from the IWR database, apparently not reviewed or screened by USEPA, is depicted in the graphic on the left from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.023
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Inappropriate Selection of Impaired Waters. A number of water bodies within the EAA that were listed as impaired, are listed based on conditions other than nutrient concentrations, and therefore should be included in the analyses. USEPA assumed an unproven link between low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) and elevated nutrients. USEPA not only failed to substantiate this relationship, but calls

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4172Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals their own assumption into question by indicating that low DO could be caused by other factors (e.g. groundwater seepage) that were not related to nutrients. The result was to exclude a number of potentially relevant data points, especially from the EAA (where very limited data were available to begin with) and where groundwater influence is known to be a significant factor. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.024
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The proposed nutrient criteria for canals in the EAA are 0.042 mg/L and 1.6 mg/L for TP and TN, respectively. Data provided by USEPA was used to replicate the distribution statistics shown in Table 4-1 that is the source of these criteria. With the exception of one less WBID-Year in the West Region, the computations were reproduced. Specifically, the calculations for the EAA region were reproduced enabling an analysis of the impact of introducing additional data to the analysis. The EAA is a distinct region and is not accurately represented by the above criteria. The USEPA calculated 75% percentile TP and TN for the EAA are 0.044 mg/L and 1.72 mg/L, respectively. To arrive at these numbers, USEPA used data that is over 35 years old and taken from one single station south of the Rotenberger natural area outside of the main canal network as the source. These data consisted of a mere 26 samples taken from 1973 to 1975. USEPA repeatedly states that the agency relied upon FDEP's 303(d) list of impaired waters. An inspection of the FDEP's 303(d) Everglades Group 5 Basin/ Southeast District - Verified List (Cycle 1 Revised and Readopted May 2009) Hydrologic Units: Everglades shows that two WBIDs excluded by USEPA due to nutrient impairment are not on the latest Verified List. These are the S-8 and Ocean Canal WBIDs (3260 and 3252A). Adding these WBIDs to the calculations produces a 75th percentile of 0.089 and 3.02 mg/l for TP and TN, respectively. Several of the EAA WBIDs listed as impaired in the FDEP Verified List are listed due to DO, but not nutrients. These WBIDs are 3254, 3251, 3238E & 3263. The aforementioned WBIDs should have been included since neither FDEP nor USEPA provided any evidence that the DO levels below the DO criterion were the result of, or caused by, nutrients. The only mention of nutrients in FDEP's Verified List for the DO impaired WBIDs is in the Comment Section. The Comment Section merely compares WBID values to the 70th percentile of statewide values collected from the historical period 1970 to 1987. Nowhere in the USEPA's report was any biological significance placed on any distributional value. Since USEPA did not provide any evidence to support that these WBIDs are impaired their exclusion is arbitrary. Adding these WBIDs to the calculations produces a 75th percentile of 0.097 mg/L and 3.56 mg/L for TP and TN, respectively. These corrected values represent over a 100% error in USEPA's calculations, thus rendering USEPA's criteria for south Florida canals arbitrary and capricious. The final statistics with the above WBIDs added to the calculation method developed by USEPA are shown in Table 1. This table is a more representative distribution of water quality in non-nutrient impaired canals within the EAA than the criteria proposed by USEPA. Furthermore, if a more scientifically rigorous approach is used to select acceptable ranges of concentrations, the full range of variability should have been used rather than the 75th percentile that was arbitrarily chosen by USEPA (see statistical discussion below).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4173Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Changes in USEPA's proposed criteria for South Florida canals that result from including water quality data from additional monitoring sites that were not impaired for nutrients from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. The criteria developed using the correctly derived reference data (by USEPA's stated method) are more appropriate in that they arrive at higher TN and TP criteria. These numbers are in closer agreement to ambient conditions in the EAA (see Izuno 2010), than the criteria proposed by USEPA for a reference set of canal data not representative of the unique conditions in the EAA, and are equally valid in terms of having no adverse effects on designated uses of EAA canals. The criteria developed using the correctly derived reference data (by USEPA's stated method) are more appropriate since they arrive at TN and TP criteria that are in closer agreement to ambient conditions in the EAA, than the criteria proposed by USEPA. The USEPA criteria were based on a "reference set" of canal data not representative of the unique conditions in the EAA. The expanded data set is equally valid in terms of adding reference sites in EAA canals that show no adverse effects of nutrients on their designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.026
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Positive Correlation Values Do Not Establish Cause-Effect Relationships Scientific evidence provided by USEPA to support presumptive cause-effect relationships between elevated concentrations of TN and TP and adverse effects on biological resources is weak, at best, and based on inference from low positive statistical correlations. Information provided by USEPA in their report and extensive studies by FDEP and others have shown that many other factors besides nutrients influence the quality and abundance biological communities in canals. The fact that correlations are low, indicate that nutrient effects are small compared to these other factors and that the benefits to be gained by controlling nutrients will negligible. For example, USEPA has identified low positive correlation values between concentrations of TP, concentrations of TN and concentrations of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll in turn is a measure of the relative abundance of phytoplankton organisms in the water column. These organisms contain phosphorus and nitrogen as components of their physical structure. Therefore as the numbers of organisms increase, the amount of chlorophyll, the amount of phosphorus and the amount of nitrogen will also increase in proportion. It is not appropriate in such cases to conclude (or imply) that elevated concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus cause an increase in chlorophyll. It could also be concluded that increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are a result of increased levels of chlorophyll. Apparently high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll in the water column can occur as the end result of a wide range of fortuitous chemical and physical events that result in large numbers of organisms at a particular location.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4174Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.030
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Masking Variability The USEPA does not consider the variability between stations and sampling dates. The data were all collapsed to calculate annual means for the water body. This practice of averaging over all stations and dates within a year reduces and does not accurately reflect the variability of a site or station. If the station-year variability were used instead, then the 75th percentiles would be increased slightly, as shown in Table 3: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. Effect of using station-year variability instead of WBID-year variability on Standard Deviation and 7th Percentile Values for Chlorophyll, TN and TP from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.038
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Chlorophyll as a Criterion for EAA Canals Chlorophyll Detection Limit. The minimum analytical detection limit (MDL) values for chlorophyll can vary between sampling programs and laboratories depending on sampling procedure, method of analysis, instrumentation, and other practical considerations. The MDL was 3 ug/L for many of the canal stations that were used to derive the reference distribution. These values were converted to 1.5 ug/L (i.e., one-half the MDL) by the USEPA prior to calculating annual geometric means for the WBIDs. An example, station FAKA in the Fakahatchee Strand had 70 of 91 samples below the detection level of 3 ug/L. These values were converted to 1.5 ug/L by the USEPA. DB Environmental, Inc. (2010) collected samples of Miami Canal water from just upstream of S8 and identified dominant types of algae (ie, greens, diatoms, etc). The water was then "spiked" with various concentrations of the dominant alga phylum to obtain a range of chlorophyll concentrations. The results were documented with photos, to identify concentrations at which the green color chlorophyll was noticeable in clear water and in the colored waters that typically occur in South Florida canals. Results of this study indicated that at concentrations of 20 ug/L or less, green color was barely noticeable in clear water and was undetectable in colored water found in most canals, especially canals in the EAA and Everglades (see DB Environmental, 2010 and additional discussion below). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.044

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4175Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Reference Condition Approach USEPA has proposed a reference site approach to derive the numeric nutrient criteria values in its Nutrient Rule. This reference site approach is scientifically indefensible when applied to south Florida canals. Moreover, accepting USEPA's decision to use a reference site approach in south Florida, USEPA failed to comply with its own findings and guidelines on how to apply the reference site approach. Reference Site Approach is Inappropriate for South Florida Canals SFWMD has developed very specific ecoregions for the south Florida area (see above) These were ignored by USEPA despite being readily available. The south Florida canals criteria fails to account for any sub eco regions within south Florida nor does it account for any variability within canals, such as soils, geology, water levels or flows. USEPA itself admits that south Florida canals are unique with specific biological expectations and that canals are used for varying purposes such as drainage, flood control and irrigation. While USEPA admits that various eco regions exist within south Florida, USEPA fails to consider these areas, instead is proposing a blanket value for the entire south Florida region. The reference site approach used in this rule does not support a causal link between the numeric value and the desired biological response in the canals. This lack of causality is further intensified in the EAA because the EAA canals were specifically constructed and designed for flood control and water supply purposes. In addition, the EAA is naturally high in nitrogen and contains unique geologic formations (discussed in detail below) which impact how nutrient affect the water body. USEPA Failed to Consider the Everglades Agricultural Area as a Distinct Sub Eco-Region of South Florida (see Izuno 2010) The numeric values derived for the EAA canals are arbitrary and capricious because they are not based on sound science. As documented in the various scientific reports attached, the EAA is a distinct geological area with unique soil and vegetative characteristics. These unique characteristics mandate that the EAA be analyzed as a sub-ecoregion within South Florida when developing numeric nutrient criteria for these canals. EAA is naturally high in nitrogen and the chlorophyll value derived for the EAA canals is excessively low and arbitrary. The distinct geological characteristics for the EAA merit that it be recognized and assessed as a separate sub eco-region within the south Florida. Improper Use of FDEP Reference Sites USEPA inappropriately used FDEP's reference site data for streams, determining that a large percentage of high quality systems were impaired. FDEP invested substantial effort to define reference sites that supported high quality aquatic habitat and a high diversity of species across a wide range of natural variability within Florida Streams. USEPA arbitrarily chose to determine that 25% of these verified sites were impaired, thus invalidating FDEP's efforts. Selection of Reference Sites

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4176Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals The proposed rule selects reference sites primarily on whether a site scored well on the Stream Condition Index (SCI), with insufficient consideration of whether anthropogenic sources were affecting nutrient concentrations in the stream. This is inconsistent with USEPA (2000) guidance on nutrient criteria development cited in the proposed rule that states, "Reference systems should be minimally disturbed and should have primary parameter (i.e. TN, TP, chlorophyll and turbidity) values that reflect this condition." The approach used by FDEP to screen sites in order to confirm they were minimally disturbed is superior to the approach used in the proposed rule. USEPA excluded sites with suitably high SCI scores for use as a reference site if they were listed as impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen. The presence of naturally low dissolved oxygen is common in many Florida streams, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations should not be used as sufficient evidence to reject the use of a stream as a reference site. The use of a more rigorous approach to reference site selection would allow criteria to be based upon a higher percentile of the reference site distribution, minimizing the Type I error common to the proposed rule. In the selection of "reference sites" for development of criteria for canals, USEPA used no biological data. Chlorophyll was chosen as a surrogate for biological conditions, based on canals that were considered to be "unimpaired" based on concentrations of nutrients. There were no follow-up investigations to verify that healthy biological communities existed within these canals. Reference Condition Approach is Overly Simplistic The reference condition approach used in the Proposed Rule for streams and canals is overly simplistic and will result in inappropriate and arbitrary criteria and inefficient pollution control efforts. Reference concentrations for Florida streams varied 80-100 fold for numerous regions. Selection of a single "protective" concentration value as a criterion from these extremely wide ranges is arbitrary and cannot directly provide or even indirectly estimate appropriately protective concentrations. The objective of water quality criteria is to define concentrations that are protective of a designated use at a threshold level above which unacceptable responses occur. Nutrient criteria should be based upon existing site-specific determinations of protective concentrations for canals and streams when available, as opposed to inference from wide ranges of reference data. The intent of water quality criteria is to maintain pollutant concentrations at levels below those which would prevent attainment of a designated use. Ideally, such nutrient criteria would be based on scientific studies that define the relationship between nutrient concentrations and designated use support. (Dilks 2010) Many site-specific factors (e.g. hydraulics, shading, water color) can affect the relationship between nutrient concentrations and designated use support. When data from a large number of sites are lumped together, the range in influencing factors can confound the development of direct relationships between nutrients and designated uses. USEPA's development of statewide criteria on an expedited schedule led to their lumping of data from widely disparate sites, and prevented them from defining statewide criteria that explicitly considered site-specific protection of designated uses. Instead, USEPA used the reference condition approach for canals and streams to indirectly estimate nutrient criteria based on observed concentrations from "unimpaired" sites. The aggregation of data from disparate sites resulted in extremely large ranges of reference concentrations. Even after subdividing data into smaller regions, observed nutrient concentrations for unimpaired South Florida canals ranged several fold, and reference concentrations for Florida streams varied 80-100 fold. Selection of a single

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4177Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals "protective" concentration value as a criterion from these extremely wide ranges is arbitrary. USEPA's proposed approach for developing nutrient criteria for Florida canals and streams is by their admission only "an inference model" that cannot directly estimate appropriately protective concentrations. (Dilks 2010) Reference Condition Approach Results in Excessive False Positive Designations (Dilks 2010) The proposed criteria consist of components describing the allowable magnitude, duration, and frequency of exceedance. The magnitude component is based upon USEPA's (2000) reference condition approach, and is designed to set the criterion value such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion. The duration component states that: 1) the criterion value cannot be exceeded on a long-term average basis, and 2) the criterion value cannot be exceeded more often than once in three years. Given the observed inter-annual variability in canal nutrient concentrations, the "once-inthree- years" component of the criterion is more restrictive than the long-term average component. In simple terms, any water body that exhibits year to year variability would be expected to exceed its average concentration in half of all years. This means that water bodies that comply with the long term average can easily be out of compliance with the once-in-three year frequency target. The proposed rule inappropriately uses the observed long-term average concentration as the metric when calculating the 75th percentile value. Because the frequency component of the criterion is the more restrictive of the two components (and therefore the component most likely to determine compliance with the criterion), it should be used as the basis of the target concentration. The canal nutrient data provided by USEPA was analyzed to determine how consideration of compliance with the frequency component of the criterion would affect the percentage of "false positives" (i.e. unimpaired sites are considered impaired). The percent of years that average concentrations in each unimpaired WBID exceeded the proposed criterion was calculated to determine which WBIDs do not exceed the proposed criterion more frequently than once in three years. This analysis shows that 62% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed phosphorus criterion, and 64% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed nitrogen criterion. These findings show that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the USEPA (2000) guidance cited as the basis of the criteria are based. The guidance recommends that the criterion value be defined such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion, while the proposed criteria result in only 62-64% of the reference canals being considered unimpaired. The actual percentage of false positives is therefore 36-38%, nearly 50% greater than the recommended 25% rate of false positives. USEPA needs to either modify the proposed criterion values or modify the application of the frequency component to provide criteria that are consistent with the guidance it cites. USEPA Fails to Comply with its Own Technical Guidance in Applying the Reference Site Approach The reference site approach involves identifying a reference water body that is unimpacted. USEPA admits that the reference site approach requires using similar class water bodies to develop a reference base. In this rule, USEPA used no canals in south Florida as a reference site but merely infers, from other water bodies, values that may result in biological impairment. USEPA has a wealth of technical guidance documents providing procedures and a framework for the development of water quality criteria. This guidance dates back to 1985, with the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms. Since then USEPA has developed other guidance documents

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4178Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals on the proper and scientifically defensible manner in which to derive criteria. These guidance documents collectively support the following principal regarding the development of numeric nutrient water quality criteria:

• Criteria should be derived if adequate data exists to provide confidence that the value is defensible In 1998, USEPA issued its National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (USEPA June 1998). This National Strategy document states that in order to properly set numeric criteria values, the confluence of numerous physical and regional facts that affect a water bodies' reaction to nutrients must be account for. USEPA's National Nutrient Strategy Document (1998) developed eco regions for the nation, but qualified them as simply a "starting point" with further refinement warranted. USEPA acknowledges deferring to the States to develop more specific eco regions that account for specific variability. In 2007, USEPA updated its National Nutrient Strategy Document and once again restated its position on how numeric nutrient criteria should be established. Notably, as recently as 2007, USEPA states "To be effective, nutrient criteria should address causal (both nitrogen and phosphorus) and response (chlorophyll-a and transparency) variables for all waters that contribute nutrient loadings to our waterways . USEPA encourages the adoption of standards for all four parameters because of the interrelationships between these parameters and its experience showing that controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus is important to successfully combating nutrient pollution in all waters." This continues USEPA policy that a cause and response relationship must be established in order to set proper, accurate and scientifically defensible numeric criteria. In July, 2000, USEPA produced a Technical Guidance Manual for Nutrient Criteria in Rivers and Streams (USEPA, 2000). In this document, USEPA clearly states that water bodies should be group and classified together to aid in setting criteria for streams that have specific characteristics. USEPA prescribes classifying the streams using a two phased approach. (USEPA used its stream methodology as discussed above to derive its canal values). In this two- phased approach, requires, 1) In the first phase, classification of stream should be based on physical parameters associated with regional and site specific characteristics, including climate, geology, substrate features, slope, canopy cover, retention time of water, discharge and flow continuity, system size and channel morphology. 2) in the second phase, further classifying streams by nutrient gradient (measured by nutrient concentrations and algal biomass) With respect to classifying streams, EPA concludes "therefore, to set appropriate criteria for rivers and streams in an eco region, streams must be classified by their morphological characteristics at both landscape and stream reach scale, with an emphasis on those characteristics most likely to affect nutrient cycling." (USEPA 2000 pg. 20) USEPA also recommends a process for selecting reference sites from within eco regions. It states that once the appropriate eco region is delineated using the characteristics described above, reference sites can be identified. Similar to the process for described for eco region refinement, reference site selection involves interactions with scientists, and water quality managers who understand local conditions. In addition, USEPA recommends "field verification

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4179Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals techniques" for selecting reference sites for sub regions. (USEPA 2000, pg 21). Importantly, in its 2000 Technical Guidance, USEPA supports and admits that causal or predictive relationships between nutrients and biomass are required to identify the critical or threshold concentrations that produce nuisance algal biomass. (USEPA 2000, pg 76). Clearly, the need to have a causal link between a nutrient and its impact to a water body is a fundamental part of setting numeric nutrient criteria. USEPA has wholly abandoned this requirement by setting numeric values with no correlation or understanding of its impact to the water body. The USEPA approach in this proposed rule (USEPA 2010b) is contrary to its guidance documents concerning the proper approach to derive numeric criteria. Previous USEPA guidance documents describe how the physical and specific characteristics of a water body must be documented and analyzed when setting numeric water quality criteria. Those procedures were not used in this case. In fact, the "one size fits all" approach that USEPA used to set criteria, based on the 75th percentile with no biological verification, is arbitrary. Within the EAA, many canals meet their designated use despite higher levels of nutrients and chlorophyll than those in the Nutrient Rule. The purpose of setting water quality standards is to prevent an imbalance of natural flora and fauna and not to return these water bodies to predevelopment conditions. 

# Comment ID 1759-1.001.005
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC Finally, EPA's reliance on the reference site approach to develop numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida is also flawed because it ignores the need to have a causal link between the numeric value proposed and the specific biological result of the water body. As acknowledged in previous EPA guidance documents, the physical and specific characteristics of a water body must be accounted for and analyzed when setting numeric water quality criteria. The EPA failed to do so in the Proposed Rule. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.019
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 2. Methodology for Establishing Canal Criteria The EPA used a reference approach for establishing the proposed canal criteria. However, this approach is inappropriate and unsupported. As previously discussed, canals are artificial waterways created by man for water supply and flood control purposes. As such, it is impossible to determine which canals are "reference" canals because canals are not natural systems. Cocoa recognizes the importance of regulating canals and monitoring water quality. However, the approach of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4180Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals regulating canals like natural water bodies is inappropriate. Canals are marks on the earth's surface for human uses. In order to meet these uses, we must remove vegetation. Thus, canals should be approached differently than natural systems. Water quality characteristics should be maintained to some degree because canals ultimately discharge into coastal waters. However, EPA should instead focus on the protection of downstream coastal waters and develop canal criteria to protect those uses. Moreover, the protection of downstream coastal waters cannot be achieved under the Proposed Rule because canals lack the biological characteristics that must be considered in protecting downstream waters. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. As SUCh, the EPA should exclude canals state-wide from the Proposed Rule. Assuming the EPA does not exclude canals from the Proposed Rule, the methodology for establishing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is flawed. The database of information used by the EPA in determining the proposed criteria did not contain enough data points to account for the varying conditions across the South Florida region. Notwithstanding our recommendation for the EPA to increase the delineation of the South Florida region to recognize the four subregions, in order to use a scientifically defensible reference approach, the EPA must increase its data collection across the South Florida region to include canals from a variety of locations. The current database is predominately composed of samples from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer, which has more freshwater flow and lower nutrient levels. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. This is unrealistic for canals elsewhere in the South Florida region. The EPA must first determine the biological endpoint that the Proposed Rule is being designed to protect. At this point, there is not enough information available regarding South Florida canals to understand what type of biological community exists in the canals. It is impossible for the EPA to establish criteria to ensure the protection of a biological community when it is not even know what that community is. Additionally, EPA improperly assumes all WBIDs in the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") are impaired and therefore does not consider these WBIDs in the distribution. However, this assumption is incorrect. The only canals EPA determined were not impaired are canals in the Biscayne Aquifer and a few isolated canals on the west coast. In fact, one WBID is not impaired at all and only 3 WBIDs are impaired for nutrients. All other WBIDs are impaired for DO and should be included in distribution. Furthermore, the EPA's use of multiple assessment methods requires the evaluation of cumulative Type I Error that is compounded as assessment methods are added. Already, there is over 50% Type I Error for reference canals. With this error rate, criteria are arbitrary. Using the third "all time all places" alternative assessment method results in 90%

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4181Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals probability of failing. Under this method, if a water body station passes first geometric mean once every 3 years and long term mean, this method comes into play and evaluates criteria for every sample collected. This approach is completely arbitrary. Finally, some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands, but the Proposed Rule fails do address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.043
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 2. Methodology for Establishing Canal Criteria The EPA used a reference approach for establishing the proposed canal criteria. However, this approach is inappropriate and unsupported. As previously discussed, canals are artificial waterways created by man for water supply and flood control purposes. As such, it is impossible to determine which canals are "reference" canals because canals are not natural systems. Plant City recognizes the importance of regulating canals and monitoring water quality. However, the approach of regulating canals like natural water bodies is inappropriate. Canals are marks on the earth's surface for human uses, In order to meet these uses, we must remove vegetation. Thus, canals should be approached differently than natural systems. Water quality characteristics should be maintained to some degree because canals ultimately discharge into coastal waters. However, EPA should instead focus on the protection of downstream coastal waters and develop canal criteria to protect those uses. Moreover, the protection of downstream coastal waters cannot be achieved under the Proposed Rule because canals lack the biological characteristics that must be considered in protecting downstream waters. Several studies in central and South Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. As such, the EPA should exclude canals state-wide from the Proposed Rule. Assuming the EPA does not exclude canals from the Proposed Rule, the methodology for establishing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is flawed. The database of information used by the EPA in determining the proposed criteria did not contain enough data points to account for the varying conditions across the South Florida region. Notwithstanding our recommendation for the EPA to increase the delineation of the South Florida region to recognize the 4 subregions, in order to use a scientifically defensible reference approach, the EPA must increase its data collection across the South Florida region to include canals from a variety of locations. The current database is predominately composed of samples from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer, which has more freshwater flow and lower nutrient levels. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in South Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4182Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals groundwater Will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in South Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. This is unrealistic for canals elsewhere in the South Florida region. The EPA must first determine the biological endpoint that the Proposed Rille is being designed to protect. At this point, there is not enough information available regarding South Florida canals to understand what type of biological community exists in the canals. It is impossible for the EPA to establish criteria to ensure the protection of a biological community when it is not even know what that community is. Additionally, EPA improperly assumes all WElDs in the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") are impaired and therefore does not consider these WBlDs in the distribution. However, this assumption is incorrect. The only canals EPA determined were not impaired are canals in the Biscayne Aquifer and a few isolated canals on the west coast. In fact, one WBlD is not impaired at all and only 3 WBlDs are impaired for nutrients. All other WBlDs are impaired for dissolved oxygen "DO" and should be included in distribution. Furthermore, the EPA's use of multiple assessment methods requires the evaluation of cumulative Type I Error that is compounded as assessment methods are added. Already, there are over 50% Type I Error for reference canals. With this error rate, criteria are arbitrary. Using the third "all time all places" alternative assessment method results in 90% probability of failing. Under this method, if a water body station passes first geometric mean once every 3 years and long term mean, this method comes into play and evaluates criteria for every sample collected. This approach is completely arbitrary. Finally, some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands, but the Proposed Rule fails do address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.053
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 2. Methodology for Establishing Canal Criteria The EPA used a reference approach for establishing the proposed canal criteria. However, this approach is inappropriate and unsupported. As previously discussed, canals are artificial waterways created by man for water supply and flood control purposes. As such, it is impossible to determine which canals are "reference" canals because canals are not natural systems. Seminole County recognizes the importance of regulating canals and monitoring water quality. However, the approach of regulating canals like natural water bodies is inappropriate. Canals are marks on the earth's surface for human uses. In order to meet these uses, we must remove vegetation. Thus, canals should be approached differently than natural

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4183Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals systems. Water quality characteristics should be maintained to some degree because canals ultimately discharge into coastal waters. However, EPA should instead focus on the protection of downstream coastal waters and develop canal criteria to protect those uses. Moreover, the protection of downstream coastal waters cannot be achieved under the Proposed Rule because canals lack the biological characteristics that must be considered in protecting downstream waters. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. As such, the EPA should exclude canals state-wide from the Proposed Rule. Assuming the EPA does not exclude canals from the Proposed Rule, the methodology for establishing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is flawed. The database of information used by the EPA in determining the proposed criteria did not contain enough data points to account for the varying conditions across the South Florida region. Notwithstanding our recommendation for the EPA to increase the delineation of the South Florida region to recognize the 4 subregions, in order to use a scientifically defensible reference approach, the EPA must increase its data collection across the South Florida region to include canals from a variety of locations. The current database is predominately composed of samples from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer, which has more freshwater flow and lower nutrient levels. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. This is unrealistic for canals elsewhere in the South Florida region. The EPA must first determine the biological endpoint that the Proposed Rule is being designed to protect. At this point, there is not enough information available regarding South Florida canals to understand what type of biological community exists in the canals. It is impossible for the EPA to establish criteria to ensure the protection of a biological community when it is not even know what that community is. Additionally, EPA improperly assumes all WBIDs in the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") are impaired and therefore does not consider these WBIDs in the distribution. However, this assumption is incorrect. The only canals EPA determined were not impaired are canals in the Biscayne Aquifer and a few isolated canals on the west coast. In fact, one WBID is not impaired at all and only 3 WBIDs are impaired for nutrients. All other WBIDs are impaired for DO and should be included in distribution. Furthermore, the EPA's use of multiple assessment methods requires the evaluation of cumulative Type I Error that is compounded as assessment methods are added. Already, there is over 50% Type I Error for reference canals. With this error rate, criteria are arbitrary. Using the third "all time all places" alternative assessment method results in 90% probability of failing. Under this method, if a water body station passes first geometric mean once every 3 years and long term mean, this method comes into play and evaluates criteria for every sample collected. This approach is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4184Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals completely arbitrary. Finally, some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands, but the Proposed Rule fails do address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.047
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 2. Methodology for Establishing Canal Criteria The EPA used a reference approach for establishing the proposed canal criteria. However, this approach is inappropriate and unsupported. As previously discussed, canals are artificial waterways created by man for water supply and flood control purposes. As such, it is impossible to determine which canals are "reference" canals because canals are not natural systems. Titusville recognizes the importance of regulating canals and monitoring water quality. However, the approach of regulating canals like natural water bodies is inappropriate. Canals are marks on the earth's surface for human uses. In order to meet these uses, we must remove vegetation. Thus, canals should be approached differently than natural systems. Water quality characteristics should be maintained to some degree because canals ultimately discharge into coastal waters. However, EPA should instead focus on the protection of downstream coastal waters and develop canal criteria to protect those uses. Moreover, the protection of downstream coastal waters cannot be achieved under the Proposed Rule because canals lack the biological characteristics that must be considered in protecting downstream waters. Several studies in central and South Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. As such, the EPA should exclude canals state-wide from the Proposed Rule. Assuming the EPA does not exclude canals from the Proposed Rule, the methodology for establishing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is flawed. The database of information used by the EPA in determining the proposed criteria did not contain enough data points to account for the varying conditions across the South Florida region. Notwithstanding our recommendation for the EPA to increase the delineation of the South Florida region to recognize the four subregions, in order to use a scientifically defensible reference approach, the EPA must increase its data collection across the South Florida region to include canals from a vatiety of locations. The current database is predominately composed of samples from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer, which has more freshwater flow and lower nutrient levels. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in South Florida and the source ofmuch ofthe region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4185Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals canal water level groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in South Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 Mg/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. This is unrealistic for canals elsewhere in the South Florida region. The EPA must first determine the biological endpoint that the Proposed Rule is being designed to protect. At this point, there is not enough information available regarding South Florida canals to understand what type of biological community exists in the canals. It is impossible for the EPA to establish criteria to ensure the protection of a biological community when it is not even know what that community is. Additionally, EPA improperly assumes all WBIDs in the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") are impaired and therefore does not consider these WBIDs in the distribution. However, this assumption is incorrect. The only canals EPA determined were not impaired are canals in the Biscayne Aquifer and a few isolated canals on the west coast. In fact, one WBID not impaired at all and only 3 WBIDs are impaired for nutrients. All other WBIDs are impaired for dissolved oxygen and should be included in distribution. Furthermore, the EPA's use of multiple assessment methods requires the evaluation of cumulative Type I Error that is compounded as assessment methods are added. Already, there is over 50% Type I Error for reference canals. With this error rate, criteria are arbitrary. Using the third "all time all places" alternative assessment method results in 90% probability of failing, Under this method, if a water body station passes first geometric mean once every 3 years and long term mean, this method comes into play and evaluates criteria for every sample collected. This approach is completely arbitrary. Finally, some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. Tills could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands, but the Proposed Rule fails do address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.048
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 2. Methodology for Establishing Canal Criteria The EPA used a reference approach for establishing the proposed canal criteria. However, this approach is inappropriate and unsupported. As previously discussed, canals are artificial waterways created by man for water supply and flood control purposes. As such, it is impossible to determine which canals are "reference" canals because canals are not natural systems. OUC recognizes the importance of regulating canals and monitoring water quality. However, the approach of regulating canals like natural water bodies is inappropriate. Canals are marks on the earth's surface for human uses. In order to meet these uses, we must remove vegetation. Thus, canals should be approached differently than natural systems.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4186Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Water quality characteristics should be maintained to some degree because canals ultimately discharge into coastal waters. However, EPA should instead focus on the protection of downstream coastal waters and develop canal criteria to protect those uses. Moreover, the protection of downstream coastal waters cannot be achieved under the Proposed Rule because canals lack the biological characteristics that must be considered in protecting downstream waters. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. As such, the EPA should exclude canals state-wide from the Proposed Rule. Assuming the EPA does not exclude canals from the Proposed Rule, the methodology for establishing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is flawed. The database of information used by the EPA in determining the proposed criteria did not contain enough data points to account for the varying conditions across the South Florida region. Notwithstanding our recommendation for the EPA to increase the delineation of the South Florida region to recognize the 4 subregions, in order to use a scientifically defensible reference approach, the EPA must increase its data collection across the South Florida region to include canals from a variety of locations. The current database is predominately composed of samples from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer, which has more freshwater flow and lower nutrient levels. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 flg/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. This is unrealistic for canals elsewhere in the South Florida region. The EPA must first determine the biological endpoint that the Proposed Rule is being designed to protect. At this point, there is not enough information available regarding South Florida canals to understand what type of biological community exists in the canals. It is impossible for the EPA to establish criteria to ensure the protection of a biological community when it is not even know what that community is. Additionally, EPA improperly assumes all WBIDs in the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") are impaired and therefore does not consider these WBIDs in the distribution. However, this assumption is incorrect. The only canals EPA determined were not impaired are canals in the Biscayne Aquifer and a few isolated canals on the west coast. In fact, one WBID is not impaired at all and only 3 WBIDs are impaired for nutrients. All other WBIDs are impaired for DO and should be included in distribution. Furthermore, the EPA's use of multiple assessment methods requires the evaluation of cumulative Type I Error that is compounded as assessment methods are added. Already, there is over 50% Type I Error for reference canals. With this error rate, criteria are arbitrary. Using the third "all time all places" alternative assessment method results in 90% probability of failing. Under this method, if a water body station passes first geometric mean once every 3 years and long term mean, this method comes into play and evaluates criteria for every sample collected. This approach is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4187Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals completely arbitrary. Finally, some canals are located on tribal lands and are thus outside the jurisdiction of state and federal water quality criteria. This could have significance if those canals carry high nutrient loads to canals not on tribal lands, but the Proposed Rule fails do address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.017
Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Similar to EPA's instream values for streams, EPA's instream values for canals fail a robust statistical analysis.[28] EPA's use of the 75th percentile results in the same fatal flaw for canals as it did for streams: an unacceptably high false positive rate. EPA's false positive rate flaw is compounded by EPA's decision to ignore site-to-site variability and develop the proposed criteria using data aggregated across sites. And the false positive rate flaw is even further compounded by EPA's use of a long-term arithmetic mean of annual geometric means. The end result is statistically indefensible canal criteria. [28] Info Tech, Critique of EPA's Proposed of EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Canals, (April 20, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.038
Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council In light of this particularly troubling impact to a regional water supply initiative in Southeast Florida, we believe that key questions need to be answered by EPA regarding its proposed canal criteria:

- What constitutes a "reference canal" in EPA's reference condition approach?

- What biological community is EPA trying to protect with its proposed canal criteria?[104]

- Florida canals are not natural systems; rather, they are manmade alterations to the landscape that serve numerous vital functions, particularly including flood control. How has EPA taken these functions into account in deriving its standards?

- Why is EPA proposing a TN standard, when the agency specifically determined in 2007 that a TN standard was not needed for EPA's Everglades nutrient TMDL, because there was no evidence of TN causing an imbalance of flora or fauna in canals?[105]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4188Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals [104] See 40 C.F.R. 131.2. [105] See EPA, Proposed TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen & Nutrients In the Everglades (WBIDs 3252A, 3252B, 3252C, 3260, 3263, 3265B), 18 (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/documents/Version2_Everglades_TMDL_9-30-07.pdf

. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.009
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Freshwater Canals in the Biscayne Bay Basin: In the interim before approach (c) can be implemented, SFDOI recommends that nutrient criteria be based on annual geometric means for TP, TN, and Chl-a concentrations in canals within the Biscayne Bay Basin using preferably the 25th (preferably) or 75th percentile approaches and consider the results from existing nutrient impact studies. Information on nutrient enrichment should be considered for setting TN criterion. Also, appropriate statistical techniques, such as the Multiple-limit Regression or the Kaplan-Meir method, should be used for setting numeric nutrient criterion. Numeric criteria for freshwater canals discharging into both ENP and BNP must be protective enough of the canals' designated use and of those downstream water bodies. The SFDOI believes that the proposed nutrient criteria for freshwater canals discharging into Biscayne Bay are not protective enough for that ecosystem. Also, as the proposed criteria are higher than existing conditions, it poses a potential conflict with Outstanding Florida Water designations that provide a non-degradation level of protection. Specifically, we recommend that the nutrient criteria for canals in the Biscayne Bay Basin be established as 0.010 mg/L for TP, 1.0 mg/L for TN, and 2.3 ug/L for Chl-a as annual geometric means. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. We look to working with the EPA as the proposed standards are refined. If you have any questions on our comments related to South Florida please contact Mr. Donald Jodrey, at 202-208-6273. For questions related to the Southeast Region, please contact Mr. Bill Starkel, at 404-679-7127. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.015
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior For South Florida, the USEPA has proposed numeric criteria for TP, TN, and Chl-a concentration for canals that have Class III designation (62-302.400 F.A.C.). The proposed TP criterion would not apply to canals within the Everglades Protection Area, which have an existing criterion of 0.010 mg/L (62-302.540 F.A.C.). The TN and Chl-a criteria, however, would apply to canals within the Everglades Protection Area. The proposed water quality criteria for South Florida are 4.0 ug/L for Chl-a, 1.6 mg/L for TN, and 0.042 mg/L for TP. These concentrations were calculated as the 75th percentile of annual geometric mean concentrations at sites considered as nutrient unimpaired within the South

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4189Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Florida regions (USEPA Chapter 4). The data used by the USEPA to develop nutrient criterion included many basins and multiple structures, with more than 42,600 records for TN, 67,000 records for TP, and 5,500 records for Chl-a (EPA Chapter 4). These areas are subject to agricultural and urban eutrophication, which is reflected in the surface water quality data and resulted in proposed criteria that are relatively high compared to water quality conditions found in the Biscayne Bay Basin. An analysis of the South Florida data set by the USEPA showed the proposed criterion was met 69% of the time for Chl-a, 60% for TN, and 66% for TP. However, when these criteria are compared to data for canals discharging into Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay, the results indicate ambient concentrations are much lower than the proposed criteria. Frequency analysis (not presented here) reveals that concentrations as high as the proposed criteria have never been observed at some of these stations or have occurred with a frequency of less than 10% at most canals as a result of extreme runoff events. For the stations we analyzed, 80%, 72%, and 94% met the Chla, TN, and TP criteria, indicating that concentrations were rarely as high as those proposed. Therefore, the USEPA proposed nutrient criteria appear to be unrepresentative of Biscayne Bay's and Florida Bay's watershed nutrient concentrations. We conclude, therefore, that the proposed nutrient criteria for Biscayne Bay is higher than existing conditions, and thus, not protective enough of the ecosystem creating a potential conflict with Outstanding Florida Water designations that provide a non-degradation level of protection. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.016
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Additional analyses to improve EPA's efforts: To illustrate the difference between USEPA proposed criteria and existing conditions, historical Chl-a, TN, and TP data for freshwater canals in Miami-Dade County were analyzed. Data were obtained from the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) and include only the first freshwater station upstream from the Bay for each canal shown in Figure 1. There were two reasons for selecting these stations: (a) concentrations at these stations are more representative of nutrient fluxes leaving the canals and entering into the Bay than concentrations at upstream stations; and (b) concentrations at these stations represent the aggregate impact of the entire watershed on the canal water quality. Chlorophyll data were mostly obtained from SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). Total Nitrogen (TN) was calculated by summing NOx (nitrite and nitrate) and TKN (Kjeldahl Nitrogen). Records with concentrations below the MDLs (method detection level) were flagged as nondetects. The USEPA analyses used a MDL substitution for non-detects. Current scientific literature provides numerous examples of how the 1⁄2-MDL substitution technique performs poorly by comparison to other more reliable methods (Gilliom and Helsel, 1986; Helsel and Cohn, 1988; She, 1997; Helsel 2005; Hewett and Ganser, 2007). We estimated a fill-in value for nondetects using a Multiplelimit Regression (MR) method (Helsel and Cohn, 1988). The estimated values (MR method) and measured values (above MDLs), as a group, were used to compute annual geometric means and to draw box plots. Sixteen stations for TP, 18 stations for TN, and five station for Chl-a were analyzed using this approach. The period of record for the DERM data ranged from 1988 to 2007 and for the SFWMD data from 1989 to 2007 (water quality stations shown in Figure 1; listed in Table 1). Stations that had the averageof annual geometric means above the USEPA proposed nutrient criteria were considered impacted for this analysis, and stations below the criteria were considered unimpacted.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4190Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.018
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Appropriateness of a dose-response approach: The effects of nutrients from the Biscayne Bay watershed on phytoplankton was documented by Brand (1988) and Brand et al. (1991), and discussed by Brand (2002) in a comparative study of coastal nutrient impacts. In this study, relatively high Chl-a was correlated with canal discharge, with the most eutrophic area being north Biscayne Bay, at the mouths of the Miami and Little rivers. It was concluded that while primary productivity in most of Biscayne Bay was phosphorus limited, north Biscayne Bay was more nitrogen limited. In general, low residence time in Biscayne Bay is a factor in maintaining low Chl-a biomass, but runoff and canal discharge during storm runoff events may contribute significantly to nutrient loading and foster phytoplankton bloom conditions (Rudnick et al., 2006). From recent algal bloom events that have been attributed to road construction activities and hurricane impacts, it is clear that small increases in nutrient loads in the Bay can result in significant, widespread biological impacts (Rudnick et al., 2006). The low residence time of much of the Bay also means that the coral reef system is frequently exposed to its water quality as Bay water tidally exchanges with the Atlantic Ocean, effectively linking canal water quality with the Bay and the reef tract beyond. While these studies provide evidence that current nutrient concentrations in canals in the Biscayne Bay watershed impact biological resources in Biscayne Bay and pose the risk of coastal eutrophication, the results do not lend themselves to the development of a dose-response function for phosphorus or nitrogen concentrations. To accomplish this, a numerical analysis of existing water quality conditions is more appropriate to develop specific nutrient criteria for the protection of state and national aquatic resources. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.019
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Numerical analysis of existing water quality conditions: For the statistical analysis, Biscayne Bay Basin canal stations were divided into three groups (Table 1). Stations in canals discharging north of the Rickenbacker causeway were classified as North Bay. Stations in canals discharging between Rickenbacker causeway and north of the Black Point Marina were classified as Central Bay. Stations in canals discharging in the Bay south of the Black Point Marina, including the southern sounds, were classified as South Bay. Annual geometric means were estimated for all stations and unimpacted stations by canal group (north, central, and south) and are shown in Table 3 and Figures 2, 3, and 4. The TP box-plots (Fig. 2) for unimpacted and all stations look similar because there is only one station that is considered impacted. By contrast, the TN box plots for data from unimpacted and from all stations appear quite different (Fig. 3). In all cases, the USEPA proposed TP, TN, and Chl-a criteria are high concentrations that only rarely occur in these systems.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4191Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. The 25th percentile for all stations and the 75th percentile for unimpacted stations. See original comment letter. Table 2 shows the results of the USEPA analysis for South Florida and Table 3 the results of this analysis for Biscayne Bay Basin. Nutrient concentrations from the USEPA 75th (unimpacted) approach, which were selected as criteria, are consistently higher than concentrations from the USEPA 25th (all stations) approach and much larger than concentrations from our 25th and 75th approaches. On the basis of this analysis, we recommend that the nutrient criteria, as annual geometric mean, for the Biscayne Bay Basin be set to a TP concentration of 0.010 mg/L, a TN concentration of 1.00 mg/L, and a Chl-a concentration of 2.3 ug/L. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Total Phosphorus (TP) box plots for all stations and unimpacted stations. Unimpacted stations for this analysis are those whose average of annual geometric mean is below the USEPA proposed TP criterion. Red dashed line is USEPA proposed TP criterion of 0.042 mg/L. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Total Nitrogen (TN) box plots for all stations and unimpaired stations. Unimpacted stations for this analysis are those whose average of annual geometric means is below the USEPA proposed TN criterion. Red dashed line is USEPA proposed criterion of 1.6 mg/L. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. Chlorophyll-a box plot for C-111 Canal stations. Red dashed line is USEPA proposed criterion of 4.0 ug/L. See original comment letter. Presently, only stations in the South Bay canal group have TN concentrations similar to the USEPA proposed criterion of 1.6 mg/L (frequency of exceedence of about 50%). Five of the eight stations included in this analysis were considered TN-impacted. The reason that these canals have elevated TN concentrations, by comparison to the rest of the canals in this basin, is because the canals drain mostly agricultural areas around the Bay. Several of these canals have been identified by the State and others as having marginal water quality (Long et al., 1999; O'Donnell et al., 2005). Princeton Canal drains a mixture of agricultural and residential areas and passes next to a large municipal landfill. Mowry Canal drains an area of intense farming activity and is contiguous to soakage pits that receive secondarily treated wastewater from the City of Homestead (Facility number, FLA013609). Military Canal, which is included in the FDEP's 303(d) list, drains the Homestead Air Reserve Base (a USEPA Superfund site). In a recent study, Zhang et al. (2009) reported that the level of nutrients discharged from Military Canal after Hurricane Katrina increased by 7 to 10­ fold from storm-induced runoff, causing a Bay increase in nutrient concentrations from 2 to 5-fold. Caccia and Boyer (2005) estimated that 65% of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) load was discharged into South Bay and noted that the DIN:TP ratio of 440 was nearly 7 to 10-fold that of North Bay and Central Bay, respectively. The same authors identified Mowry Canal and Princeton Canal as the two single largest contributors of nitrate loading to Biscayne Bay and as having the highest TN flow-weighted mean concentrations of all canals discharging into Biscayne Bay. More importantly, nutrient enrichment studies (Szmant, 1987, Brand 1988; Brand et al., 1991; Brand 2002; and Graves et al., 2005) have documented adverse effects from canal discharges into Biscayne Bay. Graves et al. (2005) found that Mowry and Princeton Canals discharges were causing nutrient-induced imbalances that have altered the flora (phytoplankton, epiphytic algae, and macrophytes) and fauna (benthic macroinvertebrates) in the vicinity of these canals in Biscayne Bay.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4192Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1794-1.001.022
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 2) We recommend that nutrient criteria for canals be based on annual geometric means for TP, TN, and Chl-a concentrations in canals within the Biscayne Bay Basin using the 25th (preferably) or 75th percentile approaches and considering the results from existing nutrient impact studies. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.023
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 3) On the basis of the statistical approach described in (2), we recommend that the nutrient criteria for canals in the Biscayne Bay Basin be established as 0.010 mg/L for TP, 1.0 mg/L for TN, and 2.3 ug/L for Chl-a as annual geometric means. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.025
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 5) We recommend that appropriate statistical techniques be used for setting nutrient criteria. We strongly advise against the use of simple substitution methods for nondetects - values below method detection levels. These methods could lead to loss of information and erroneous statistics (Helsel, 2005; Castro and Shinde, 2008). Specifically, we recommend approaches such as the Multiple-limit Regression (Helsel, 2005) or the Kaplan-Meier method, which is available in most statistical packages 

# Comment ID 1830.001.011
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212 FR Section E(2)(a) 4. DERM concurs with the statistical "distribution-based" approach in general, but recommend a more site-specific approach to aggregating data (see more detailed comments below). Also, concur generally with concept of excluding data that are from nutrient-impacted canals from the analysis, but basing this on FDEP's "impaired" list may require

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4193Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals further refinement. The FDEP IWR "Impairment" process is dependent on availability and sufficiency of Chlorophyll-a data, however, many canal systems throughout the region have extensive nutrient measures without concordant Chlorophyll-a data. Thus, the approach utilized by the EPA could include canals that may be impacted with nutrients by from land use activities and runoff in their ‘aggregated' data analysis. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.013
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212 FR Section E(2)(a) 6. Use of the State of Florida's IWR numeric interpretation of narrative criteria for Chlorophyll (20 ug/L and 11 ug/L for streams and estuaries/open waters, respectively), is an inappropriate point of reference for far south Florida canals and estuaries, which typically are characterized by chlorophyll-a concentrations, 5 to 10 times less than the cited values. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.014
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212 FR Section E(2)(a) 7. DERM does not object to the statistical distribution approach for deriving criteria. This approach was used for derivation of algal bloom ecological indicators for Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay, which identified the 75th percentile as the threshold for severe ecological imbalance (Boyer, et al. 2009). However, more detailed explanations as to the derivation of the quartiles is required. It is not clear from either the Supplemental Information Document or the EPA TSD (Chapter 4) how the actual aggregation of data was done. The information bullets contained in the EPA TSD, Chapter 4; pp. 4-3 & 4-4 state the data were organized by "Region-WBID-Year", however, it is not clear how that process was conducted. The term "region-WBID-year" should be better defined, so that a reviewer understands how means were calculated. Confusing use of the term "region" is exacerbated by the fact that the TSD (Chapter 4) defines up to 6 regions (EPA TSD Table 4-1 & 4-2), however the Supporting Material Document and the Proposed Rule only provides one set of criteria for an entire region (all South Florida Canals. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.019
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4213FR Section E(2)(b) 12. DERM does not concur with the statement "...it is clear that EPA's proposed criteria for canals are similar to those derived from alternative approaches..". The EPA TSD Ch 4 clearly demonstrates categorical differences in TP, TN

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4194Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals concentrations when assessed on a ‘subarea' basis. The "subareas" are not similar to each other. Table 4.1 (EPA TSD, Ch 4) shows the subarea with the highest 75th percentile concentration for TP (i.e., the 75th percentile of distribution of WBID-year concentrations within the subareas) to be 84% higher than the subarea with the lowest 75th-percentile concentration. Similarly for TN, the highest 75th-percentile concentration is 55% higher than the subarea with the lowest 75th-percentile concentration. The differences between subareas are shown to be greater when using the approach of using the 25th-percentile concentration of the distribution of all the data (EPA TSD, Ch 4 Table 4-2). There the difference between the highest and lowest of the subarea 25th-percentiles is 165% (TN) and 366% (TP), respectively. These data further support the assertion that greater resolution is required in the definition of the ‘regions' and ‘subareas' for determination of criteria, and a single set of criteria for all South Florida canals is not appropriate.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4195Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.011
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Canals The aggregated canal station nutrient data Water Body ID (WBIDs) provided by EPA was also analyzed to determine how consideration of compliance with the frequency component of the criterion would affect the Type I error. The percent of years that each unimpaired WBID exceeded the proposed criterion was calculated to determine which WBIDs do not exceed the proposed criterion more frequently than once in three years. This analysis showed that only 62% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed phosphorus criterion, and only 64% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed nitrogen criterion. The percentile actually estimated by the EPA for individual canal stations is generally lower than what is reported. That is, when an estimate of the station-to-station (i.e., not aggregating the data by WBIDs) and year-to-year variability is considered the percentile can be closer to 65% rather than 75%. This translates to an estimated false positive rate for TN of 32%, TP of 48% and chlorophyll of 17%, when applying the frequency and duration site tests for the canal data to an unimpaired site sampled eight times in a year. The rates are across all sub-regions for the chlorophyll and TN parameter and the three sub-region area for TP. Similar sub-region specific analyses also show unacceptably high false positive rates. It is assumed the long-term mean, which is tested against the criteria, is for a seven-year period. Basing the duration test on arithmetic average of geometric means exacerbates the false positive rates. Due to the skewness of the water quality data, the straight average of geometric means will skew the result high and increase the above false positive rates by as much as 20%. The more skewed the distribution, the greater the effect. By rightly assuming the data is log-normally distributed, the estimates of the mean and standard deviation are unbiased, if properly estimated. The false positive rates can then be controlled by instead using the 90th percentile along with the frequency and (appropriate) duration tests, while properly controlling for station-to-station and year-to-year variability. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.024
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3. Large Errors and Omissions in the Application of EPA Methodology for Canals The proposed nutrient criteria for canals in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) are 0.042 mg/L and 1.6 mg/L for TP and TN, respectively. Data provided by EPA was used to replicate the distribution statistics shown in Table 4-1 that is the source of these criteria. With the exception of one less WBID-Year in the West Region, the computations were reproduced. Specifically, the calculations for the EAA region were reproduced enabling an analysis of the impact of introducing additional data to the analysis.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4196Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The EAA is a distinct region and is not accurately represented by the above criteria. The EPA calculated 75% percentile TP and TN for the EAA are 0.044 mg/L and 1.72 mg/L, respectively. The derivation of these values used a single station south of the Rotenberger natural area outside of the main canal network as the source. Additionally, these data consisted of 26 samples taken from 1973 to 1975. EPA repeatedly states that the agency relied upon FDEP's 303(d) list of impaired waters: "The data were further screened by selecting only the sites located in WBIDs that were not listed as nutrient-impaired on FDEP's 303(d) list." An inspection of the FDEP's 303(d) Everglades Group 5 Basin/Southeast District - Verified List (Cycle 1 Revised and Readopted May 2009) Hydrologic Units: Everglades shows that two WBIDs excluded by EPA due to nutrient impairment are not on the latest Verified List. These are the S-8 and Ocean Canal WBIDs (3260 and 3252A). Adding these WBIDs to the calculations produces a 75th percentile of 0.089 mg/L and 3.02 mg/L for TP and TN, respectively. Several of the EAA WBIDs listed as impaired in the FDEP Verified List are listed due to (DO), but not nutrients. These WBIDs are 3254, 3251, 3238E &3263. The aforementioned WBIDs should have been included since neither FDEP nor EPA provided any evidence that the DO levels below the DO criterion were the result of nutrients. The only mention of nutrients in FDEP's Verified List for the DO impaired WBID s is in the Comment Section. The Comment Section merely compares WBID values to the 70th percentile of statewide values collected from the historical period 1970 to 1987. Nowhere in the report was any biological significance placed on any distributed value. Since EPA did not provide any evidence to support that these WBIDs are impaired, their exclusion is arbitrary. Adding these WBIDs to the calculations produces a 75th percentile of 0.097 mg/L and 3.56 mg/L for TP and TN, respectively. These corrected values represent over a 100% error in EPA's calculations, thus rendering EPA's criteria for South Florida canals arbitrary and capricious. The final statistics with the above WBIDs added to the calculation method developed by EPA are shown in Table 1. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals from FDEP in Table 1 EAA Statistics with Additional Data Included. See original comment letter. The above table is a more representative distribution (given EPA's methodology of estimating the distributional properties) of water quality in non-nutrient impaired canals within the EAA than the criteria proposed by EPA. EPA provided no evidence for rejecting data, for use in a pooled data set, from sites with fewer than four measurements per year. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.038
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Building on the above findings, the Everglades Agricultural Area Everglades Protection District (EPD) canal study (five South Florida canal locations surveyed quarterly for one year) demonstrates that canals exhibit consistently poor habit for macroinvertebrates (i.e., "marginal" or "poor"). As expected, macroinvertebrate communities in South Florida canals

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4197Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals were characterized as poor across a range of nutrient (TN and TP) concentrations, due to the universally poor habitat conditions. Collectively, these finding demonstrate that no improvement in canal macroinvertebrate assemblages would occur as a result of implementing the proposed TN and TP criteria, due both to 1) poor habitat condtions in canals, and 2) insensitivity of the macroinvertebrates to a range of TN and TP concentrations. [xiv] 

# Comment ID 1835-1.001.004
Author Name: Nieto G. Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation EPA's reference site does not follow this required approach, however. As to EAA canals, for example, EPA utterly fails to show a causal link between the proposed criteria and biological responses. Instead, EPA combined data from various disparate sites, resulting in extremely large ranges of reference concentrations. EPA then attempted to deal with this variability by arbitrarily setting the criteria using the 75th percentile with no biological verification, and no attempt to show a statistically significant relationship between its chosen values and the resulting biological condition in the canals. The resulting criteria are therefore arbitrary and capricious. The defects in EPA's application of the reference site approach are compounded as to EM canals because those canals were specifically constructed and designed for flood control and water supply purposes. As with most canals in south Florida, EAA canals are part of a highly managed surface water system. Many of these canals were created for the sole purpose of water supply and flood control. This purpose significantly affects a canal's response to nutrients. EPA should have accounted for these characteristics in deriving its numeric criteria. Instead, EPA, arbitrarily relies on the derivation methodology used for natural rivers and streams. The aquatic life in canals is not the same as in natural flowing rivers and streams and canals will not support the same level of biological indicators as a natural water body. Within the EAA, many canals are meeting their designated use despite higher levels of nutrients than those in the Nutrient Rule. EPA's delegated authority is based on protection of designated uses. The purpose of setting water quality standards is to prevent an imbalance of natural flora and fauna. Without an understanding of what nutrient concentrations will prevent imbalance, the criteria are arbitrary and capricious, and the Nutrient Rule exceeds EPA's congressional authority in the CWA. 

# Comment ID 1835-1.001.005
Author Name: Nieto G. Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation 2. EPA fails to recognize that the EAA is a distinct eco-region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4198Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals The numeric values derived for the EAA canals are arbitrary and capricious because they do not account for the unique physical and geologic characteristics of the EAA. As the Technical Comment Paper and the supporting material in the Joint Submittal show, the EAA is a distinct geological area. Its soil has intrinsically higher nitrogen values, resulting in the surface waters also having higher nitrogen values. No other regions in south Florida contain soils with this makeup. EPA admits in its Technical Support Document that the EAA is a separate eco-region. Yet, it arbitrarily ignores this fact and adopts one value for all of south Florida. Compounding this error, EPA used reference sites primarily outside of the EAA to set the EAA's numeric criteria. These reference sites are inappropriate for the EAA, given its far-different physical characteristics. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that nitrogen in the EAA is causing an adverse impact to the water resources of south Florida. As EPA has itself admitted algae within the EAA have the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and there is no data "... indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances of flora and fauna in Class III canals in the EAA" (EPA, TMDL Protocol Document, 2007). As these admissions show, particularly given the failure of EPA to cite to any new data that would contradict them, the proposed concentrations for nitrogen in the EAA are arbitrary and capricious and without any basis in science. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.017
Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 36. Proposed criteria apply only to canals in south Florida. Therefore, the proposed regionally-specific stream criteria would apply to canals in other parts of the state. This is not appropriate since the water quality data used to develop these stream criteria did not include any data from canals in those regions. Data from canals in central and north Florida should be included in the analysis and regionally-specific criteria should be developed for canals throughout the state. Several studies in central and south Florida canals strongly suggest that physical factors rather than nutrients are most important in providing acceptable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. 37. Factors other than nutrient concentration are very significant in determining overall canal health. Likely influences include canal shape and depth, lack of riparian habitat and unstable side slopes, underlying substrate (sediment, decayed organic material, or Biscayne aquifer limestone), water flow patterns (long periods of stagnation with short periods of high volume flow, and the existence of exotic species. Some of the data used to derive the canal criterion were taken from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level, groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 J.!g/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.028

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4199Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 4. South Florida Canals - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(4) While CF Industries does not own or operate facilities that discharge into South Florida canals, EPA's treatment of those artificial waters is similarly problematic and warrants comments. The Florida DEP did not proposed criteria for South Florida's maze of drainage and flood control canals, because it could not apply its stream condition index to the artificial waters and the State has no alternative biological metric that can be applied to maintained ditches. Additionally, the canals are not natural systems and are subject frequent dredging and herbicide treatments for aquatic weed control and to maintain flow during wet weather; Florida has no reference canals or ditches. Yet EPA used a reference water approach to derive canal criteria. As detailed above in regard to streams, there is no legitimate basis for using a reference water approach for deriving numeric nutrient criteria, because the approach does not link nutrient concentration (the dose or cause) to a biological response variable (response or effect). Neither EPA nor the Florida DEP have developed biological metrics that describe a biologically healthy South Florida ditch; saying that a canal is "minimally disturbed" is an oxymoron in that a canal or ditch is a wholly artificial water body or an historic stream that has been dramatically disturbed by channelization. There is no rational basis for declaring that one ditch is a model ditch against which all others should be compared. Yet EPA simply states-without explanation-that "EPA has determined that the criteria derived from a distribution of canal data from canals with no evidence of impairment are appropriate and protective of designated uses." This conclusory statement appears to be the sole basis of EPA, again, proposing an improper use of a frequency distribution of nutrient data. This is another example of EPA improperly using statistics and a limited data base to construct criteria without demonstrating any relation to any biological response variables within the target waters. "Merely asserting that the choice was 'reasonable' is not enough.[26] [26] See footnote 4. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.057
Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 7. The proposed criteria for canals are based on an inappropriate database, also are not based on a cause-effect relationship, and thus are scientifically invalid. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.085
Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4200Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Comments on Canal Criteria - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(4)[3] Overall, the provisions of the proposed rule regarding Florida canals were not developed using sound scientific principles, and we thus conclude that they are arbitrary. The document provides no clear statement regarding what ecosystem qualities and designated uses the USEPA was trying to protect by developing nutrient criteria for Florida canals. Although the document acknowledges that a very large diversity exists in types of canals in Florida and their range of existing uses, the analysis performed by the USEPA lumped together data from a variety of sources on a variety of canal types, making it highly unlikely that the resulting criteria could actually be protective of any designated or intended uses. The EPA eliminated extensive amounts of data, and sites, and sources of data in developing its final data base, but that resulted in a data base with unknown and undescribed characteristics relative to the population of canals (or perhaps populations of canals types) in south Florida. It is not possible for reviewers to determine whether the final data base is representative of all or some canal classes (regional or otherwise) in South Florida. The EPA document also is unclear regarding what the proposed nutrient criteria actually are or whether a specific set of numeric criteria are being proposed. The bases for these criticisms is presented in the following paragraphs. The document begins by describing the diversity of canal types in Florida and the wide range of intended and designated uses-from water conveyance for irrigation or flood control to aesthetic enjoyment and navigation (finger canals in coastal residential areas). South Florida canals are not commonly used for contact recreation, but fishing is common. It is highly unlikely that one set of nutrient criteria would be applicable to all the types of canals and uses, but the EPA did not address this issue. In addition, beyond mentioning the above types and uses, the EPA did not develop information on appropriate response indicators to protect these designated or intended uses or describe appropriate limiting (threshold) values for such indicators. The EPA used chlorophyll a as a response indicator in section 4c ("Alternative Approach Considered by U. S. EPA") but provided no data to support the use of any given chlorophyll concentration as a threshold value to protect canal ecosystem health or intended/designated uses, and it provided no documentation to support the use of chlorophyll a as an appropriate response indicator. [3] The comments here were adapted with permission from comments prepared by P.L. Brezonik, 2010. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.093
Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Two issues are of specific concern regarding the deletion of data and sites by the EPA. First, there is no obvious scientific reason to delete sites from the data base with fewer than four measurements per year. This would be appropriate if one were developing specific criteria for such (data-limited) individual sites, but the EPA presented no evidence that the data from such sites are invalid for use in a pooled data set. Second, the limits used to exclude TN (100 mg/L) and TP (15 mg/L) data are much too high. Raw sewage has a TP of -7-8 mg/L or less and TN < -35 mg/L. It is most unlikely that canal samples with TN or TP concentrations higher than raw sewage could represent accurate data. It is not possible to determine from information provided in the report whether this resulted in a significant number of suspect data being retained in the data base. The EPA grouped the canal sites into four geographic regions, but the basis for using this approach was not explained adequately. Ultimately, it appears that the EPA did not use the four

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4201Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals regions to develop separate criteria. It would be much more appropriate from a scientific perspective to group the canals based on physical characteristics like use (e.g., conveyance canals versus residential "finger" canals), major soil category for the landscape in which the canal occurs, or a hydrologic characteristic like average water residence time. The EPA document is not specific regarding which of the sets of nutrient criteria described in the report is the one that the EPA intends actually to use. The first set (p. 4-4) is given without comment simply as the 75th percentile values for TP, TN, and chlorophyll a in canal sites that were not listed as impaired. No direct statement is provided that these values are intended to be the proposed nutrient criteria for canals. One must refer back to the top of page 4-2, where it is stated that because of the lack of reference or benchmark sites, the EPA proposes to use this criterion (the 75th percentile data) to establish nutrient criteria for canals. The impression is given that the authors of the report were lacking confidence in their results. 

# Comment ID 2375.001.004
Author Name: English G. Organization: South Indian River Water Control District While this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth noting that there is no relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. This point was acknowledged by EPA during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing waters, especially man-made canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. 

# Comment ID 2376.001.004
Author Name: Baird L. Organization: Barron Water Control District While this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth nothing that there is no relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. EPA acknowledged this point during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing water, especially man-made canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that have noted the unique nature of canals in South Florida and that the methods for deriving numeric criteria for canals should be reviewed. EPA also acknowledges commenter concerns related to the influence of groundwater on canals; EPA’s decision to not propose geographic-specific criteria for South Florida canals; linkages of numeric

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4202Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals criteria to designated uses; statistical procedures (e.g., normality, detection limits); use of annual geometric mean vs. flow-weighted means; use of the reference approach; and EPA’s choice to screen the data analyzed using the 303(d) list. Further, specific comments related to the decision to propose chlorophyll criteria as well as the relative magnitude of the proposed TN and TP are noted. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2.B - OTHER DATA AND ANALYSES CONDUCTED AND CONSIDERED BY EPA IN THE DERIVATION OF PROPOSED NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FL CANALS Comment ID 1352-1.001.158
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The results of other analyses were considered as additional lines of evidence to assist in the decision-making process, including:

• Evaluation of the stressor-response relationship between TN and TP concentrations and chlorophyll a levels in canals.

• Consideration of the distribution of chlorophyll a, TN, and TP measurements from all canals, impaired and not impaired. Nutrient concentrations at the lower end of these distributions were compared to the concentration in canals with no evidence of nutrient impairment.

• Consideration of the distribution of chlorophyll a, TN, and TP values from only those canals considered to be minimally impacted by nutrient related pollution. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.159
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Because soil or substrate type at the bottom of a canal can influence nutrient cycling and biological responses in canals, data on soil types in south Florida were investigated. The canals were assigned to one of four spatial groupings based on local soil type. The resulting regionalized data was analyzed by spatial group using statistical distribution and regression analyses. The criteria listed in Table 3 were obtained by averaging 75th percentile values for TP, TN, and chlorophyll a from the different geographic areas. However, although data from each of the four regions was

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4203Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals statistically analyzed separately, regional values were averaged to develop the TN, TP, and chlorophyll a criteria. It is therefore unknown why the regionalization exercise was conducted if all regions were averaged for the end result. Also, given that many canal bottoms have limestone bottoms in the surficial aquifer, the surrounding soil types may be less relevant that originally assumed (Van Zee et al., undated). 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.160
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County In an effort to identify chlorophyll a, TN, and TP values in canals minimally impacted by nutrient pollution, EPA also identified canal sites with the lowest influence from human activities. The upper percentile values (i.e., the 75th percentile) from the distributions of chlorophyll a, TN and TP values for these lower impact sites are 3.4 ug/L for chlorophyll a, 1.3 mg/L for TN and 0.018 mg/L for TP. It was concluded that EPA's proposed criteria for canals are similar to those derived from these alternative approaches and therefore represent a reasonable integration of these multiple lines of evidence. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.069
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The results of other analyses were considered as additional lines of evidence to assist in the decision-making process, including:

• Evaluation of the stressor-response relationship between TN and TP concentrations and chlorophyll a levels in canals.

• Consideration of the distribution of chlorophyll a, TN, and TP measurements from all canals, impaired and not impaired. Nutrient concentrations at the lower end of these distributions were compared to the concentration in canals with no evidence of nutrient impairment.

• Consideration of the distribution of chlorophyll a, TN, and TP values from only those canals considered to be minimally impacted by nutrient related pollution. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.070
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Because soil or substrate type at the bottom of a canal can influence nutrient cycling and biological responses in canals, data on soil types in south Florida were investigated. The canals were assigned to one of four spatial groupings based on local soil type. The resulting regionalized data was analyzed by spatial group using statistical distribution and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4204Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals regression analyses. The criteria listed in Table 1 were obtained by averaging 75th percentile values for TP, TN, and chlorophyll a from the different geographic areas. However, although data from each of the four regions was statistically analyzed separately, regional values were averaged to develop the TN, TP, and chlorophyll a criteria. It is therefore unknown why the regionalization exercise was conducted if all regions were averaged for the end result. Also, given that many canal bottoms have limestone bottoms in the surficial aquifer, the surrounding soil types may be less relevant that originally assumed (Van Zee et al., undated). 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.071
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners In an effort to identify chlorophyll a, TN, and TP values in canals minimally impacted by nutrient pollution, EPA also identified canal sites with the lowest influence from human activities. The upper percentile values (i.e., the 75th percentile) from the distributions of chlorophyll a, TN and TP values for these lower impact sites are 3.4 ug/L for chlorophyll a, 1.3 mg/L for TN and 0.018 mg/L for TP. It was concluded that EPA's proposed criteria for canals are similar to those derived from these alternative approaches and therefore represent a reasonable integration of these multiple lines of evidence. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.025
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.143 It is not uncommon for local agencies to have to redelineate WBIDs during the TMDL process based on local data. Be advised that the WBID boundaries are not necessarily watershed boundaries and great care should be taken in using WBID boundaries in any technical analysis. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.026
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works pg. 144 EPA needs to do a companion analysis of these sites that "represent sites with the lowest impact from human activities" to determine how often over the period of record they would be judged in compliance on an annual basis using the proposed criteria of a geometric mean. These sites need to be vetted for biological condition to ensure that they are actually minimally disturbed. Both of these sites designated as lowest impact from human activities were located in wetland areas in adjacent ecoregions. As such, nutrient values from these sites may not be comparable to sites located in the Miami Ridge/Atlantic Coastal Strip or Southern Coasts and Islands Ecoregions.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4205Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1715-3.001.034
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 25th Percentile of All Canals Another proposal by USEPA was to base the criteria on the 25th percentile of all canal data. This appears to be a totally arbitrary threshold, since no scientific basis is provided to justify this decision. The proposed criteria based upon this 25th percentile are drastically reduced -- to a chlorophyll value of 2.109 ug/L, TN of 1.08 mg/L, and TP of 0.018 mg/L. Using these standards, the false positive rates from applying the frequency and duration tests to a given station and year, estimated assuming the mean and station variability of the unimpacted sites, are shown in Table 8: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 8. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria based on the 25th percentile of all canal data for Station-Year estimates from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.127
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(2)(b) Other Data and Analyses Conducted and Considered by EPA in the Derivation of Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals Statement: EPA undertook extensive analyses and considered a variety of data and methods for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's canals. Comment: Among the analyses completed by EPA was to group the canal data into four soil types and four regions - the Everglades Agricultural Area, Everglades Protection Area, West Coast, and East Coast. Individual analyses were conducted in each region but ultimately results were lumped together into one number for all canals. Given that each of these regions has unique characteristics, it might be more appropriate to identify criteria based upon the different regions. For reasons discussed already, chlorophyll a should be eliminated as a canal criterion. In addition, nutrient limits should only be proposed for the limiting nutrient, if TN or TP is limiting. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.035
Author Name: Braswell S.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4206Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Florida Farm Bureau IX. The EPA's Proposal for Florida's Canals

a. Sub-Regions in South Florida are Not Considered In the proposed rule, the EPA recognizes sub-regions throughout the State of Florida, denoting regional differences in physical and chemical conditions. The EPA originally reviewed four South Florida sub-regions in its technical analysis of water quality conditions.[70] However, the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule only denotes one sub-region for South Florida. The SAB published a draft report (January 8, 2010), noting that the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), with its unique geological features, should be a distinct sub-region. The report additionally notes that other regions of distinction include the Everglades, Rocky Glades, Marl Prairie, Coastal Plain and Riverine. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has long considered subregions throughout South Florida. These areas have unique and distinct soils, subsurface water movement, aquifers as well as the depth of the aquifer below the ground surface. For example, south of the latitudinal line of Lake Okeechobee there are several distinct areas, including but not limited to: the Caloosahatchee (phosphate deposits), EAA (muck soils with rock at various depths), Lower East Coast (rock/marl soils and surficial high volume Biscayne aquifer), and Lower West Coast/Big Cypress (sandy soils).[71]

[70] Technical Supporting Document for USEPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Waters, Chapter 4 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.4), January 26, 2010, 4-1 through 4-4. [71] South Florida Environmental Report, Volume 1, South Florida Water Management District, August 5, 2009, 1-2 (draft) 

# Comment ID 1830.001.018
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 11. We do not concur that canals within the EvPA or Big Cypress should be considered to represent a minimally impacted condition or condition that is biologically sound, and conversely, it should not be assumed that canals in some more developed areas are unhealthy, impaired with respect to nutrients, or are not meeting designated use. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.030
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4207Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Comments on Alternative Approaches Considered EPA also requested comments on specific alternative approaches that were considered for the new rule. We offer the following three comments:
1. EPA’s alternative canal criteria based on the 25th percentile of all canal data has an unacceptably high false positive rate; 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA notes the commenter concerns raised by EPA’s decision to not propose geographic-specific criteria for South Florida canals, assumptions regarding minimally-impacted sites used in an alternative analysis, proposing chl-a criteria, and false positive rates. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2.C - PROPOSED CRITERIA: DURATION AND FREQUENCY No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.E.2.Q.1 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS QUESTION 1 Comment ID 1270.001.003
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Let me move to another point. We're concerned also that the frequency and duration components that you've proposed as part of the criteria to south Florida canals are not always consistent with your derivation method for the criteria. And this is a point made by DEP in their review of your criteria for lakes and streams. And what DEP pointed out is that if your compliance requirements for duration and frequency are not consistent with the derivation methods, that will always lead to false positives. In other words, it will result in noncompliance when the canals in actuality, in fact, are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4208Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals achieving the level of nutrients that you're trying to achieve. This is what statisticians describe as a type one error. And these error rates will be very high as you move away from the derivation methods and, in our case, that you move away from annual means. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.171
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Water quality criteria contain three components: magnitude, duration, and frequency. For the numeric criteria for canals, the magnitude values are listed in Table 3 above. The criterion-duration (or averaging period) is specified in the table as an annual geometric mean. Two expressions of allowable frequency, both of which are to be met, are proposed. First, a no-more-than-one-in-three-years excursion frequency for the annual geometric mean criteria for canals must be met. Second, the long-term arithmetic average of annual geometric means must not exceed the target concentration (EPA, 2010a, page 145). We do not agree that a two-pronged duration and frequency test needs to be met in order to be protective of the designated use. The proposed annual geometric mean, not to be exceeded more than once every three years, is sufficiently protective for the canals. A single violation within the long-term assessment period can skew the data for many years and identify an unimpaired canal as impaired long after the system has been shown to recover.



# Comment ID 1355-2.001.079
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Water quality criteria contain three components: magnitude, duration, and frequency. For the numeric criteria for canals, the magnitude values are listed in the table above. The criterion duration (or averaging period) is specified in the table as an annual geometric mean. Two expressions of allowable frequency, both of which are to be met, are proposed. First, a no-more than- one-in-three-years excursion frequency for the annual geometric mean criteria for canals must be met. Second, the long-term arithmetic average of annual geometric means must not exceed the target concentration (EPA, undated, page 145). 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.010
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Duration and Frequency of Canal Protection Values EPA Expression: Concentration values are based on annual geometric mean not to be surpassed more than once in a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4209Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals three-year period. In addition, the long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the listed concentration values. (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be exceeded more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term average). EPA should not choose a percentile of a distribution to establish the magnitude of the criteria without simultaneously considering the duration and frequency of the criteria. FDEP does not support the proposed allowable exceedance frequency of not more than once in a three year period because the variability between years for measured nutrient concentrations is significant and will result in exceedances of the standard due to natural conditions and/or the inherent variability of sampling/testing procedures. Another way of looking at the issue is that the variability is so great that the long term concentration necessary to achieve the criteria at this frequency of exceedance is far less than the numeric magnitude of the actual criteria (as calculated by EPA's proposed 75th percentile of the distribution). To achieve the magnitude of the criteria two thirds of the time (more than half), a lower concentration will actually needed to be attained over the long run. Because of the relative lack of cause-effect relationship between nutrients and biological response in streams, and the natural variability of nutrient concentrations from year to year, this would add yet another source of unjustifiable Type I error. (Please refer to the FDEP comments on the proposed stream criteria for a data analysis of the natural variability and for some stream examples that demonstrate the year to year natural variability of nutrient concentrations in streams. This observed variability from year to year can be observed in all flowing waters.) The EPA proposed criteria are expressed as annual geometric mean values. However, it is important to consider the fact that the geometric mean benchmark values are measures of central tendency used to represent a much wider range of variability both above and below these geometric means. This variability occurs both due to natural factors (climactic and geologic) and factors inherent in sampling and testing procedures. Given this variability, minimally disturbed waterbodies with long-term (multiyear) average nutrient concentrations fully achieving the magnitude of EPA's proposed in-stream criteria will exceed the 1 out of 3 year annual geometric mean criteria with some frequency. The frequency of exceedance will be a function of both the long-term average and variability (inter-annual and within year variance). The closer a stream's long-term average concentration is to the magnitude of the criterion, the more frequently it will exceed the annual geometric mean, such that a waterbody with a long term average approaching the magnitude of the criterion will be expected to have a fifty percent exceedance frequency of the annual geometric mean. Inclusion of a return frequency test, such as the proposed no more than one exceedance in a three year period, will require a longterm average well below the criteria to consistently achieve the criteria two thirds of the time. Because of the natural variability inherent in their nutrient regimes (driven largely by hydrology), FDEP believes that stream criteria should be expressed as a 5 year arithmetic mean of the annual geometric means, which should not be surpassed during any 5-year period. This concept is consistent with assessment period approved by EPA as part of the Impaired Waters Rule in that it is shorter. Further, NPDES permits are reviewed on a 5- year cycle, and based upon site-specific modeling, permits could be written to assure that a discharge will not exceed the criteria, including during critical conditions. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.128
Author Name: Blanchard B.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4210Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(2)(c) Proposed Criteria: Duration and Frequency Statement: The Agency requests comment on these proposed duration and frequency expressions of the canal numeric nutrient criteria. Comment: We do not agree that a two-pronged duration and frequency test needs to be met in order to be protective of the designated use. The proposed annual geometric mean, not to be exceeded more than once every three years, is sufficiently protective for the canals. A single violation within the long-term assessment period can skew the data for many years and identify an unimpaired canal as impaired long after the system has been shown to recover. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.020
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4213 FR 15:16 Section E(2)(c) 13. With respect to "duration and frequency", explicit definition of "long-term" is required. Although reference is made to the State of Florida's Assessment period for implementation of the "Impaired Waters Rule", multiple time-periods are used within the rule (Planning list assessment period= 10 year; Verified list period = 7.5 year). DERM recommends the definition of the time period for calculation of the "long-term average" to be consistent with that used for determination of the ‘Verified List" (i.e., 7.5 years), as it would make assessment of compliance with criteria more consistent with State's determinations of impairment. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.026
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 19. Regardless of the formula ultimately selected, more specification should be provided to address the minimum frequency of sampling required to calculate geometric means or quantiles. It is recommended that monthly or bimonthly sampling be required. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA acknowledges commenter concerns related to the expression of frequency and duration in the proposed rule,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4211Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals minimum sampling frequency, the need to define long-term average, potential Type I error, and the assessment period length with regard to flowing waters in South Florida. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2.Q.2 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS QUESTION 2 Comment ID 1352-1.001.172
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County If it is accepted that setting a nutrient target is an appropriate measure for protecting canals, then given the temporal response scale of receiving water (canal) and the seasonality variability that is to be expected, an annual average criteria seems appropriate. Also, requiring that the long-term average of geometric means not exceed the criterion is a proper time scale for assessment, but is not totally equitable. The "long-term" average for a short period of record can change more rapidly than the average for a long period of record. Thus, a much more significant trend could occur for a water body with a long period of time without violating the criteria. An alternative could be a five-year rolling average. 

# Comment ID 1464-1.001.013
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. E. South Florida Canals The proposed numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida canals are sound. Again, however, the provisions for determining whether a particular canal complies with the standard must be strengthened. Samples should be taken at least monthly and compliance should be determined on the basis of a seasonal median. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.010
Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4212Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Assessment of compliance should be based on data collected at least monthly - Use of annual geometric means to determine compliance with the draft canal criteria could allow long periods of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which could result in impairment of the waters for designated uses and cause long-term impacts on the biological integrity of a given canal system. This potential problem would be compounded by the proposed allowance of exceeding the standard once within a three-year period, for example in south Florida if that exceedence was to occur in the summer (wet) season when canals would be most susceptible to nutrient overloading. Assessment of compliance with these draft Class III canal nutrient criteria should be based on data collected at least monthly (see Robertson and Roerish 1999, Stansfield 2001; and see above comments under Section 1, Lakes). A minimum annual sample size also should be specified. Otherwise, situations could easily arise wherein there were insufficient data to enable sound assessment of stream conditions. More frequent sampling should be considered during known periods of algal blooms, oxygen deficits, and/or other phenomena characteristic of waters impacted by excessive nutrient additions (e.g. Glasgow and Burkholder 2000). 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.041
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Finally, the Conservancy would again suggest the use of the arithmetic mean instead of the geometric mean. 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.011
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Response to Additional EPA Questions EPA requests comment on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective. Our comments follow on each alternative:

• A criterion-duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean - criteria should be applied in the same manner in which they are derived to be scientifically-valid. If criteria are derived from annual geometric means, they should be applied in the same manner.

• A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year - this would result in an unacceptably high type I error rate due to year to year natural variability and sampling/analytical variability.

• A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half of the years of a given assessment period - This is unclear, but our recommendations for duration and frequency are discussed above.

• A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only -This is recommended by FDEP. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.035

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4213Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Modification to the Duration and Frequency Expressions The USEPA also requested comments on different proposals for the duration and frequency expressions. All of these proposals suffer from many of the same criticisms as were discussed above and are therefore arbitrary. In most cases, the methods were given rather vague descriptions and it was not possible to evaluate results of their application without making some definitive assumptions about how they would be applied. Some of the proposed methods could provide rates of false positive results that range between 10% and 89% if the stated assumptions are met: A criterion-duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean Since the criteria are developed using annual means, they should be tested against annual means. As discussed earlier, the USEPA needs to develop the criteria using station-year statistics if that is indeed the values that will be used for future testing. If a test is to be performed monthly instead of annually, the false positive rate increases significantly. Assuming a relatively low false positive rate of 5% gives roughly a 50% chance of declaring the site in exceedance during a year, as shown above. Assuming a 25% false positive rate produces nearly a 100% chance that a site sampled monthly will be declared in exceedance during the year. A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year Requiring a site to be in compliance each year, when the test is based upon the 75th percentile, will generate false positives 25% of the time, assuming the distribution has been estimated accurately. A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half of the years of a given assessment period Assuming only one test annually of no more than a three-in-seven years' excursion frequency, reduces the false positive rate to approximately 10%. A criterion-frequency expressed as meeting the allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only Requiring just the long-term average frequency expression does not result in reasonable false positive rates. Assuming a given station is tested by requiring the arithmetic average of the annual geometric means over the past seven years to be below the criteria generates the false positive estimates in Table 9 (appropriately assuming a station-year variability estimate instead of water body-year as used by the EPA): Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 9. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria based on meeting the allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. A criterion-duration expressed as an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on rolling three-year periods of time - The false positive rates, assuming the three-year rolling average of annual geometric means is not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4214Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals exceeded, are listed in Table 10: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 10. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria based on arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values from three-year periods from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. The instantaneous concentration in the canal cannot surpass the criterionmagnitude concentrations more than 10% of the time (criterion-duration: instant; criterion-frequency: 10% of the time). Assuming a station is sampled monthly and is not allowed to exceed the 75th percentile more than 10% of the time in a given year (no more than 1 month in a 12 month period) produces \false positive rates shown in Table 11: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 11. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria assuming that the instantaneous concentration in the canal cannot surpass the criterion-magnitude concentrations more than 10% of the time from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. The Criterion-Frequency Using the arithmetic average of the geometric means over a period of seven years will generally produce skewed results for data sets such as this and others having a high standard deviation. Calculating an arithmetic average of the geometric means does not consider the skewness in the log-normal distribution. The results of such calculations will therefore tend to provide an estimate of the long-term average that is too high. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.129
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA requests comment on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective, including (1) a criterion- duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean, (2) a criterion- frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year, (3) a criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half of the years of a given assessment period, and (4) a criterion frequency expressed as meeting the allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only. Comment: As discussed above, we support a single duration frequency expression to identify impairment in south Florida canals. In addition, because canals are uniquely managed for flood control and water supply, they should be permitted a greater frequency of violation of the standard than would be required of a natural stream or river as long as the downstream uses remain protected. The methods described in (1) and (2) are more rigorous than would be required to ensure protection of canals. A single high value used in the calculation as described in Method (4) could cause a canal to continue to be designated as impaired long after it had recovered. We interpret Method (3) to mean that the annual

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4215Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals geometric mean will meet the criterion in more than half of the years during the assessment period. For example, in a ten year assessment period, a canal would not be considered impaired for TP provided that the annual geometric mean of TP does not exceed 0.042 mg/l more than four times. Given that the proposed TP target for canals is more stringent than any of the values for rivers or streams, we believe that Method (3) will be sufficiently protective of the canal systems. 

# Comment ID 1810-1.001.014
Author Name: Young L. Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida E. South Florida canals The proposed numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida canals are sound. Again, however, the provisions for determining whether a particular canal complies with the standard must be strengthened. Samples should be taken at least monthly and compliance should be determined on the basis of a seasonal median. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.022
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4213 FR; Section E(2)(c) 15. Use of the 75th percentile based on long-term data (as opposed to a median or mean) as a criterion appears to address the concern that there may be excursions in water quality where nutrients are elevated for a limited duration orwithin a limited area without causing ecological damage to the water body. However, under the proposed "no-morethan-one-in-three-year" and long-term mean frequency approaches (based on annual geometric means), two or three years of perturbation may occur before a threshold is exceeded, and this could result in ecological damage that has long-term consequences. Similarly, comparison of means to long-term 75th percentiles could in some circumstances allow declining condition of a water body that was not previously impaired. For that reason, in addition to the Frequency and Duration compliance values noted above, Miami-Dade DERM supports a "not-to-exceed" target, based on a higher quantile of (e.g., 95th percentile) and shorter term (e.g., quarterly or semiannually), similar to that described in the EPA TSD (Ch 4, Section 4c.iii, pg. 4-9). Compliance could be on a ‘sample' basis, and exceedance of the ‘Not to Exceed" value should not occur in more than 1 location sampled per water body assessment unit (e.g., WBID) per quarter, nor in any location sampled for 2 or more consecutive quarters.However, as noted in comments 10 & 11 above, the derivation of the percentiles should be based on smaller, more sitespecific subareas (e.g., Watershed basis). 

# Comment ID 1830.001.023

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4216Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 16. For long term (multi-year) assessments, consideration should be given to temporal trend assessment, similar to that described for Chlorophyll-a concentrations in the Florida IWR rule (FAC 62-303, wherein a water body assessment unit is not allowed to show an increase in concentration greater than 1⁄2 the ‘historic' concentration). This process would assist in assuring that water body is not gradually declining or approaching the threshold that indicates ‘impairment'' or an unhealthy condition. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA acknowledges comments on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective as well as comments related to assessment and sampling requirements with regard to flowing waters in South Florida. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.2.Q.3 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR SOUTH FLORIDA CANALS QUESTION 3 Comment ID 1270.001.002
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Our first concern we'd like to address today relates to your proposal for chlorophyll a in south Florida canals at a level of 4 micrograms. This proposal hasn't been made for clear streams or other canals in the state. Lakes are protected by much higher levels of chlorophyll a. In our view, that level of 4 micrograms per liter is not reasonably related to the designated uses of canals in the EAA. We have dark water in our canals. You can't even see 4 micrograms per liter chlorophyll a in clear water, much less dark water, and there's been no link between chlorophyll a levels at 4 micrograms and any adverse impacts on aquatic life. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.080
Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4217Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners If it is accepted that setting a nutrient target is an appropriate measure for protecting canals, then given the temporal response scale of receiving water (canal) and the seasonality variability that is to be excepted, an annual average criteria seems appropriate. Also, requiring that the long-term average of geometric means not exceed the criterion is a proper time scale for assessment, but is not totally equitable. The "long-term" average for a short period of record can change more rapidly than the average for a long period of record. Thus, a much more significant trend could occur for a water body with a long period of time without violating the criteria. An alternative could be a five year rolling average. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.021
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District D. Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Canals Requires the Analysis of Different Parameters and Derivation Techniques Than Those Used for Streams, Springs or Lakes USEPA recognizes that canals are modified systems that behave in unnatural patterns, sometimes acting like reservoirs, other times flowing more like streams, and other times flowing more like slow moving rivers. Simple compilations of data cannot describe such complexity. As a result of these complex interactions, canals cannot be subject to the same parameters and derivation approaches applied to streams or lakes. Consider:

• Using annual geometric means is not representative for canals. Canals behave like streams when the water is flowing for flood control or water supply, and then behave like lakes/reservoirs when water is not flowing, sometimes for months at a time. A single annual geometric mean (for Chla, TP and TN) used by USEPA to establish nutrient criteria may not be representative of the actual conditions for a conveyance waterbody in light of their rainfall driven and seasonal complexity. Analysis of a certain year and across years should be done separately for flowing and not flowing regimes. Flow weighted means rather than annual geometric mean Chla/TN/TP concentrations might be more appropriate for analysis. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.022
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

• Averaging over an entire waterbody is not representative for the canals crossing multiple ecoregions or other landscape types. Some primary canals in South Florida can cut across different geologic or ecological regions. Applying an annual geometric mean over the entire waterbody (canal WBID) might mask regional differences and provides statistics reflecting none of the actual environments being considered. The District's statistical comment section (see Section IV)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4218Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals provides a quantitative example of this problem. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.029
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Water Body Statistics The USEPA is calculating the 75th percentile at the water body level, but suggests that the limit will be tested against annual site geometric means. This is not sound statistical practice. The test should be applied at the same level as the data that were used to develop the test. If the EPA chooses to use a 75th percentile of annual water body means, then that value should be compared to future annual water body means. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.126
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(2) Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for South Florida Canals III.E(2)(a) Derivation of Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals Statement: EPA derived numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals for two causal variables, TN and TP, and one response variable, chlorophyll a. In contrast to EPA's proposed criteria for Florida's streams EPA concluded that there was a sufficient scientific basis for a chlorophyll a criterion for south Florida canals. Comment: We reiterate our comments in the Executive Summary and in Section III.E.(1). In particular, we do not concur that chlorophyll a is an appropriate criterion for south Florida canals, Chlorophyll a is a screening tool used to identify a water body that is potentially impaired for nutrients. Low chlorophyll a values are more likely a result of the fact that most of the canals assessed have relatively low concentrations of phosphorus and are phosphorus limited. Insufficient attention is given to identifying the limiting nutrient within the canals and proposing criteria to target the limiting nutrient so that money and effort are not wasted on achieving reductions that will not ultimately affect the water body. Phosphorus limited canals do not require a TN target. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.130
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4219Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals EPA further requests comment on whether an expression of the criteria in terms of an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on rolling three-year periods of time would also be protective of the designated use. Comment: The described method has a high likelihood of causing unimpaired canals to be designated as impaired. A canal could potentially meet the "one violation in a three year period" test, but fail under the arithmetic average test. A high year could potentially bias the data for three years and require an impairment designation long after the canal has recovered. We do not support this approach. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.004
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management DERM does not agree that water column Chlorophyll-a is a good indicator of nutrient enrichment in South Florida canals generally. In many southeastern Florida canals elevated nutrients support other aquatic plants (not necessarily phytoplankton), and undergo regular perturbations associated with maintenance and operations. Nor do we agree that there is sufficient data available for deriving a relationship between canal nutrient criteria and Chlorophyll-a concentrations. There is extremely limited data available for chlorophyll-a in canals within the Biscayne Bay watershed. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.102
Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Allowing the criteria to be exceeded one-out-of-three-years is not protective of ecosystem health. Although the criteria themselves are appropriate to protect ecosystem health,, we express this concern because it applies if EPA were to develop appropriate criteria and apply the same one-in-three-year allowance. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA acknowledges commenter concerns related to the applicability of chlorophyll as a criterion in canals; the approach of using the methods adopted from rivers, streams, and lakes; the variability of canals; and options for selecting appropriate criteria magnitude, frequency, and duration terms with regard to flowing waters in South Florida. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4220Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.3 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.E.3.Q.1 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH QUESTION 1 Comment ID 0788.001.002
Author Name: Gildan P. Organization: East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility Board The ECR comments are as follows, but I do want to note that these comments are the ECR board's comments and not the comments of the individual entities who created the board lest there be any confusion there. The first thing is the ECR would recommend that the South Florida canal section of the proposed rules be deleted and that the current narrative nutrient criteria utilized by FDEP for the South Florida canals remain in place. ECR believes that provides a superior alternative that more adequately and efficiently protects the South Florida canals and better serves the overall public interest. The FDP current rule permits for a case-by-case application that addresses each specific canal and tailors a response to meet the environmental needs of such canal, taking into account the specific inflows into those water bodies and the outflows from those water bodies. 

# Comment ID 0797.001.004
Author Name: Siniawsky J. Organization: Plantation Acres Improvement District What we see happening is essentially a one size fits all approach, and it may not and probably won't work. We believe that it wouldn't. I believe it was the very first speaker who you've heard this afternoon who suggested and we concur and urge you with the same suggestion, delete South Florida's canals from these criteria. Allow the DEP's narrative criteria to remain in place for South Florida's canals. Issues, problems can be properly addressed with the application of those narrative criteria. We don't need a one size fits all approach which may not accomplish anything but providing a severe and serious tax bill to the people who expect to have a loss. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0839.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4221Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Musgrove M. Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation I do think that special standards are going to have to be set for the canals of South Florida, the canals within the central and southern Florida flood control district. I'm not familiar with what canals may exist in North Florida or in West Florida over in the Pensacola area. I'm not even sure there are, but these are very, very large water bodies. And yes, we use them to move water all over the place. 

# Comment ID 0840.001.002
Author Name: Bell D. Organization: Central Broward Water Control District Of course, as senior back up, canals and lakes in South Florida are not like the ones in North Florida which you have streams flowing or rivers which are flowing. These are pretty much, I won't say stagnant, but unless you have a stormwater event, water doesn't move. It just sits there. They don't respond to nutrients in the same manner as the natural flowing streams in the northern part of the state, again generally constructed for conveying stormwater for flood control, and they should be treated totally difficult than the ones in the northern part of the state. 

# Comment ID 0857.001.006
Author Name: Wedgeworth G. Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida The reference sites used to develop the criteria do not reflect the canal system, and, therefore, should not be applied as one side fits all approach. Technically unattainable, and amounts to the nothing more than the behind closed doors settlement to litigation approach. 

# Comment ID 0921.001.003
Author Name: Coyle F. Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners Collier County does not support the current proposed numeric nutrient criteria. We are especially concerned with the methodology being used to develop criteria for the canals in South Florida. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) conducted extensive studies and spent over $11 million to develop phosphorus criteria for the Everglades. During this process, the FDEP recognized the difficulty in establishing criteria that would protect the diverse biological communities while accounting for stressors such as hydrologic modification and naturally low dissolved oxygen regimes. South Florida canals present a similar problem as they are artificial water bodies constructed for the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4222Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals purpose of flood control. Their biological communities are routinely altered during efforts to maintain their intended purpose and design . This makes it equally difficult to develop appropriate criteria in a system where biological communities are routinely disrupted. Based on their artificial nature and differences in morphology, Collier County believes that canals in South Florida would be best assessed for nutrient enrichment using a site specific alternative criteria approach, whereby each water body would be assessed on its own geological, nutrient cycling and hydrologic conditions. 

# Comment ID 0981-1.001.007
Author Name: Melchiori R. Organization: Becker Holding Corporation The supplementary information provided by EPA in support of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria indicates that in order to derive values for canals "minimally impacted by nutrient pollution", sites were selected in the Everglades Protection Area and Big Cypress National Preserve. These locations were selected due to their remote locations and because they were surrounded by wetlands. This is fundamentally different than nearly all of the networks of canals that serve the agricultural areas of south Florida, and thus the resultant values are not reasonably comparable to most or all waterways designated as south Florida canals. The derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for canals in south Florida also ignores significant seasonal and climatic factors that are not nearly as confounding as those affecting the streams and flowing waters in the other regions of the state. The region designated for canal numeric nutrient criteria spans tropical, humid sub-tropical, and temperate climate zones. Application of a single numeric nutrient criterion across these climate zones ignores fundamental principles of nutrient uptake, sequestration, and cycling which undermines the validity of any such single numeric criterion. 

# Comment ID 1026.001.004
Author Name: Larsen S. Organization: I urge the EPA to push forward with numeric nutrient standards. However, I would ask that the EPA relook at the South Region. There are many natural rivers and creeks south of the Caloosahatchee River, such as the Estero River and Halfway Creek. Please do not lump these natural rivers with man-made canals. Both need regulating. I also suggest the EPA work with the national estuary programs in Florida to assign science-based numeric nutrient standards to watershed basins instead of generic areas. 

# Comment ID 1135.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4223Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Naja M. Organization: Everglades Foundation Regarding the canals in South Florida, and because they tend to reflect regional geomorphology, land uses, and soil types, it's not correct to view all the canals in South Florida as one large category, even though the analysis in the EPA document was conducted based on four regionals, namely Everglades agricultural area, Everglades protection area west and east of South Florida, the final proposed nutrient criteria were averaged across these regions. The Everglades Foundation recommends that different nutrient criteria be set for these four canal regions with their differing underlying geology and surrounding land use type.



# Comment ID 1352-1.001.076
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • Proposed criteria apply only to canals in south Florida. Therefore, the proposed regionally-specific stream criteria would apply to canals in other parts of the state. This is not appropriate since the water quality data used to develop these stream criteria did not include any data from canals in those regions. Data from canals in central and north Florida should be included in the analysis and regionally-specific criteria should be developed for canals throughout the state. In addition, it is not clear how criteria would be applied to south Florida canals that lie partially outside of the South Region. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.149
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Also, although the regionality of canals was explored during the criteria process, there was no accounting for this in the final standard. If concentration targets are set, developing different criteria for each region may be appropriate. In addition, nutrient targets should only be set for the limiting nutrient in each region if one can be identified. For example, many of the canals in the south Florida area are phosphorus limited (EPA, 2007), so setting a limit for nitrogen will not result in the desired environmental benefit. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.161
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4224Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals This approach is an inference model and, as stated above, does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold established by the distribution of reference sites results in harm (impairment) to the aquatic life in a particular waterbody (EPA, 2010a). Multiple factors such as water velocity, residence time, availability of the other nutrient, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree cover and/or water transparency), water body morphology, and availability of suitable habitat, can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrients across waterbodies (EPA, 2010a). Given the uncertainty associated with this approach, caution should be used in setting hard criteria, rather than ranges or site-specific targets. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.165
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County However, the proposed criteria apply only to canals in south Florida. Therefore, the proposed regionally-specific stream criteria would apply to canals in other parts of the state. This is not appropriate since the water quality data used to develop these stream criteria did not include any data from canals in those regions. Data from canals in central and north Florida should be included in the analysis and regionally-specific criteria should be developed for canals throughout the state. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.060
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Also, although the regionality of canals was explored during the criteria process, there was no accounting for this in the final standard. If concentration targets are set, developing different criteria for each region may be appropriate. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.072
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners This approach is an inference model and, as stated above, does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold established by the distribution of reference sites results in harm (impairment) to the aquatic life in a particular waterbody (EPA, undated). Multiple factors such as water velocity, residence time, availability of the other nutrient, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree cover and/or water transparency), water body morphology, and availability of suitable habitat, can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrients across waterbodies (EPA, undated). Given the uncertainty associated with this approach, caution should be used in setting hard criteria, rather than ranges or site-specific targets.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4225Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.076
Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners However, the proposed criteria apply only to canals in south Florida. Therefore, the proposed regionally-specific stream criteria would apply to canals in other parts of the state. This is not appropriate since the water quality data used to develop these stream criteria did not include any data from canals in those regions. Data from canals in central and north Florida should be included in the analysis and regionally-specific criteria should be developed for canals throughout the state. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.004
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) II. THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA IS A DISTINCT SUB ECOREGION The numeric values derived for the EAA canals are arbitrary and capricious because they do not account for the unique physical and geologic characteristics of the EAA. Documented in the various scientific reports prepared by the EPD, the EAA is a distinct geological area with soil and vegetative factors that differ significantly from the rest of south Florida. The EAA consists primarily of peat soils, high in nitrogen. These soils have intrinsically higher nitrogen values, resulting in the surface waters also having higher nitrogen values. Since the EAA canals are water management canals, used for agricultural and water supply purposes, water levels are maintained at certain elevations to reduce the amount of soil oxidation. This water management plan reduces the amount of nitrogen released into the surface waters. No other regions in south Florida contain soils with this makeup, supporting the need to have the EAA assessed as its own sub ceo-region. [Izuno, 2010]. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.005
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) Moreover, there is no data that nitrogen in the EAA is causing an adverse impact to the water resources of south Florida. As recently as 2007, EPA admitted that they were" ... unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances of flora and fauna in Class III canals in the EAA." (EPA, TMDL Protocol Document, 2007). EPA admits that nitrogen is readily available in the EAA soils and the water column and that algae within the EAA have the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. [EPA, Proposed TMDL for the Everglades, 2007]. In light of these recent EPA admissions and the failure of EPA to cite any new data since these 2007 admissions, the proposed concentrations for nitrogen in the EAA are arbitrary and capricious and without any basis in science.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4226Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Although EPA admits in its Technical Support Document, Chapter 4, that the EAA is a separate eco-region, it ignores these distinctions by deriving one value for all of south Florida. EPA has had a long standing policy supporting regionalization of geographic areas for purposes of water quality standards. Furthermore, EPA used reference sites primarily outside of the EAA to set the EAA's numeric nutrient criteria. These reference sites are inappropriate for the EAA, in light of its unique regional and physical characteristics. These characteristics mandate that the EAA be analyzed as a sub eco-region within south Florida when developing a numeric nutrient criteria for its canals. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.005
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts While we believe dividing the State up into regions is appropriate because more regionalization that occurs the more site specific the criteria becomes versus a "one size fits all" approach. However, in the proposed rule, EPA did not regionalize enough. Dividing the State into four regions does not account for the unique natural features and variability of the State's surface waters. For example, EPA has lumped all of the flowing waters South of Lake Okeechobee into one all inclusive region. Treating the peat-based system in the Everglades Agricultural Area the same as the limerock Biscayne Aquifer system that is sustained by groundwater is inappropriate and fails to account for natural features that influence background nutrient levels. EPA has previous acknowledged five regions in the South Florida area: the Everglades Agricultural Area, the Biscayne Aquifer system, the Everglades Protection Area, and Big Cypress. EPA dismisses this previous regionalization in the proposed rule and proceeds with a "one size fits all" approach for all of South Florida's canals. Such an approach is arbitrary and it is recommended that EPA develop sub-regions within the existing four regions and develop criteria specific to the unique features of each sub-region. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.073
Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 3. EPA has failed to consider the effect of natural habitat on canal water quality. The proposed rule identifies that numerous physical factors affect the degree of nutrients present and the chlorophyll a response in canals 75 Fed. Reg. at 4212-13. Such factors include depth, hydrology, soil type, degree of wetlands present, etc. EPA noted that it could have classified canals by soil type but simply chose not to do so. The National Guidelines require that criteria account for the factors that significantly influence with impact a pollutant will have on the environment. EPA has ignored those documented factors in this case. EPA's SAB has informed the agency that refined classifications will be necessary to produce defensible nutrient criteria that are based on water body type. SAB Report, at 12, 17, 38. EPA's own reference waters guidance expressly states this position also. As soil type and the other physical factors affect the nutrient and chlorophyll a levels present even in "minimally impacted" waters, EPA's failure to account for these important factors was arbitrary and capricious.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4227Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals



# Comment ID 1476-1.001.007
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District South Florida Canals: Scientific studies of canals and canal ecology are very limited. The attached Canal Science Inventory demonstrates that minimal research exists on these complex, managed systems, which are currently classified as Class III water bodies. Protection for a healthy population of fish and wildlife in a natural stream, also classified as Class III, is fundamentally different than for a flood control canal. o The District is concerned with how a "one-size-fits-all" approach would affect operation of the regional flood control system. Adoption of an appropriate methodology and consideration of all available science and research is necessary to set scientifically valid criteria and demonstrate the exact nature of the relationship between nutrients and biological conditions in the more than 2,600 miles of canals that comprise the system. o When canal criteria are appropriately developed, the District strongly recommends that sub-regionalization be considered, given the extensive variability in types of canals and their influencing factors, such as soils and groundwater. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.038
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District An alternative approach would establish numeric nutrient criteria on a more rational watershed basis using available site specific information, such as setting criteria for a downstream body and then determining the proper way to operate the system and build projects to achieve this objective (i.e., the TMDL process). USEPA must identify specific canals that are nutrient sensitive, identify those impaired and the associated water quality levels, and then put into place numeric nutrient criteria to protect uses of these systems. The 303d list used by USEPA does not do this, even partially. No evidence was provided supporting the unimpaired status of selected canals as a basis for finding a threshold concentration of TN, TP or Chla applicable to all canals. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.017
Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society No relationship has been established between proposed criteria levels and biological response in canals. Biological validation should be required before listing a canal as impaired and there should be provisions for a clearly defined SSAC process.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4228Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.009
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• Should require biological validation before listing as impaired and should provide clear SSAC process 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.001
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Proposed Criteria for Protection of South Florida Canals [40 CFR 131.43(c)(4)] (4) Criteria for south Florida canals. The applicable criterion for chlorophyll a, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) for canals within each respective canal geographic classification area is shown on the following table: Original comment letter contains additional information in the table with the EPA's proposed canal criteria on page 3 of the pdf. See original comment letter. Overall Comment: The South Florida Canals need to be subdivided and the Criteria should be derived based on a cause effect relationship, wherever possible. EPA has recognized that the South Florida Canals are unique in character and contain their own aquatic life expectations. There is also a difference in both biological and chemical expectations related to geographic location within South Florida that needs to be taken into account. As you move towards the coastal areas, the chemical makeup of the South Florida Canals is much more influenced by groundwater and wetland interactions. Additionally, a Chlorophyll a criterion does not seem appropriate as a response variable related to use impairment because of the unique nature of canals. And for flowing waters, the South Nutrient Watershed Region should not be singled out to receive such a response variable. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection already has an EPA approved chlorophyll a numeric water quality standard for evaluating nutrient impairment in the State. 

# Comment ID 1714-1.001.003
Author Name: Reed N. Organization: The canals in South Florida reflect regional geomorphology, land uses and soil types, thus it is not accurate to view all the canals in South Florida as single category. Even though the analysis in the EPA document was conducted based on

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4229Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals four regions, namely EAA, Everglades Protection Area, West and East, the final proposed nutrient criteria were averaged across these regions. I recommend that different numeric criteria be set for these four canal regions. Furthermore, the nutrient criteria for the canals ofthe EAA should be set to protect the downstream STAs. The proposed rule should also take into account the long term plan ofbuilding reservoirs in the EAA for water storage. This stored water will flow through the EAA canals and will be treated in the downstream STAs. The rule must ensure that this water transfer can occur, without being considered a violation. 

# Comment ID 1715-1.001.003
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The numeric values derived for the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) canals are arbitrary and capricious because they are not based on sound science. As documented in the various scientific reports attached, the EAA is a distinct geological area with unique soil and vegetative characteristics. These unique characteristics mandate that the EAA be analyzed as a sub eco-region within south Florida in order to develop accurate and defensible criteria for the EAA canals. � The EAA is naturally high in nitrogen, making the nitrogen values proposed by the EPA excessively low and arbitrary. Furthermore, the EAA canals' primary function is for water supply and flood control, making the chlorophyll a values proposed by EPA excessively low and equally arbitrary. Lastly, the EPA's derivation for Phosphorous in these canals is faulty and fails to account for the region's unique and distinct physical characteristics. The EAA must be assessed as a separate sub eco-region within south Florida in order to produce accurate numeric criteria. 

# Comment ID 1760-1.001.001
Author Name: Jarvis C. Organization: City of Cape Coral While I agree that quantitative numbers are necessary for water quality standards, I disagree with the lumping together of all canals within Florida into one category. The canals within the City of Cape Coral are vastly different than canals on the east coast, which differ from agricultural canals in the interior of the state. The canals within our city were dug out of different soil materials and have different groundwater influences than the canals from the east coast.Numbers should be related to more site specific (or at least region specific) requirements rather than the one-size-fitsall approach for the canal category. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.018

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4230Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 1. Canal Definition/Delineation As discussed in the "stream definition" section of this letter, the characteristics that make a water body a canal are the same regardless of the water body's geographical location. However, in the Proposed Rule, the EPA restricts the canal definition to only water bodies located in the South Florida region. As previously discussed, canals constructed as part of the C&SF Project cross the boundary line of the South Florida and Peninsula regions and stretch into the Peninsula region of Florida. However, under the Proposed Rule, the C&SF Project canals located in the Peninsula region are regulated as natural streams. It is arbitrary to limit the canal definition to an arbitrary line separating the South Florida and Peninsula regions. The EPA should modify the canal definition to include water bodies across the state. The Proposed Rule's canal nutrient criteria apply only for "South Florida" which corresponds to the EPA "South Florida Coastal Plan Ecoregion."[16] Within the South Florida Ecoregion, it was assumed that soil type could affect nutrient patterns in canals. Subsequently, four subregions were delineated using regional soils coverage and existing protection area boundaries. The four subregions are:

• Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)

• Everglades Protection Area (EvPA)

• East - assumed to include all land east of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion

• West - assumed to include all land west of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion There is no figure in the Proposed Rule or TSD that shows the four regions. The EAA and EvPA boundaries are shown in the figure below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure from the proposed rule showing the proposed four regions. See original comment letter. There is a wide range of environmental conditions within the South Florida Ecoregion. Hydrology, vegetation, land use patterns, and especially geology vary greatly in different parts of south Florida. Of particular importance for setting the canal criteria is local geology. The Biscayne aquifer is the surficial aquifer in the eastern portion of south Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) and is the primary source of potable water for the region. The highly permeable rocks of the Biscayne aquifer are covered by a thin veneer of porous soil and aquifer water levels rise rapidly in response to rainfall. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is unconfined and generally flows toward surface waters which include the extensive system of canals in south Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western south Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4231Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Although four subregions were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in natural nutrient levels across the region can result in more stringent criteria levels than may naturally exist in the waters or are necessary to protect the natural system. The EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to recognize these subregions. [16] ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wedlecoregions/fl/fl_ecoyg.pdf

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4232Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.042
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City B. Canals [15]
1. Canal Definition/Delineation As discussed in the "stream definition" section of this letter, the characteristics that make a water body a canal are the same regardless of the water body's geographical location. However, in the Proposed Rule, the EPA restricts the canal definition to only water bodies located in the South Florida region. As previously discussed, canals constructed as part of the C&SF Project cross the boundary line of the South Florida and Peninsula regions and stretch into the Peninsula region of Florida. However, under the Proposed Rule, the C&SF Project canals located in the Peninsula region are regulated as natural streams. It is arbitrary to limit the canal definition to an arbitrary line separating

• Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)

• Everglades Protection Area (EvPA)

• East - assumed to include all land east of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion

• West - assumed to include all land west of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion There is no figure in the proposed rule or Technical Support Document ("TSD") that shows the four regions. The EAA and EvPA boundaries are shown in the figure below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 19 of 34 of the EAA and EvPA boundaries. See original comment letter. There is a wide range of environmental conditions within the South Florida Ecoregion. Hydrology, vegetation, land use patterns, and especially geology vary greatly in different parts of South Florida. Of particular importance for setting the canal criteria is local geology. The Biscayne aquifer is the surficial aquifer in the eastern portion of south Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) and is the primary source of potable water for the region. The highly permeable rocks of the Biscayne aquifer are covered by a thin veneer of porous soil and aquifer water levels rise rapidl y in response to rainfall. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is unconfined and generally flows toward surface waters which include the extensive system of canals in South Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western South Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida. Although four subregions were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in waters which include the extensive system of canals in South Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4233Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western South Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida. Although four subregions Were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in natural nutrient levels across the region can result in more stringent criteria levels than may naturally exist in the waters or are necessary to protect the natural system. The EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to recognize these subregions. [15] Even though Plant City is uot located in the South Florida area, it is offering comments regarding the proposed standards because it questions whether it is appropriate to include canals in the definition of streams outside of South Florida and EPA may respond to this comment by creating a state-wide canal standard similar to the South Florida standard. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.052
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 1. Canal Definition/Delineation As discussed in the "stream definition" section of this letter, the characteristics that make a water body a canal are the same regardless of the water body's geographical location. However, in the Proposed Rule, the EPA restricts the canal definition to only water bodies located in the South Florida region. As previously discussed, canals constructed as part of the C&SF Project cross the boundary line of the South Florida and Peninsula regions and stretch into the Peninsula region of Florida. However, under the Proposed Rule, the C&SF Project canals located in the Peninsula region are regulated as natural streams. It is arbitrary to limit the canal definition to an arbitrary line separating the South Florida and Peninsula regions. The EPA should modify the canal definition to include water bodies across the state. The Proposed Rule's canal nutrient criteria apply only for "south Florida" which corresponds to the EPA "South Florida Coastal Plan Ecoregion."[16] Within the South Florida Ecoregion, it was assumed that soil type could affect nutrient patterns in canals. Subsequently, four subregions were delineated using regional soils coverage and existing protection area boundaries. The four subregions are:

• Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)

• Everglades Protection Area (EvPA)

• East - assumed to include all land east of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion

• West - assumed to include all land west of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion There is no figure in the proposed rule or TSD that shows the four regions. The EAA and EvPA boundaries are shown in the figure below.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4234Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Original comment letter contains a figure on page 23 of the pdf of the EAA and EvPA boundaries of Florida. See original comment letter. There is a wide range of environmental conditions within the South Florida Ecoregion. Hydrology, vegetation, land use patterns, and especially geology vary greatly in different parts of south Florida. Of particular importance for setting the canal criteria is local geology. The Biscayne aquifer is the surficial aquifer in the eastern portion of south Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) and is the primary source of potable water for the region. The highly permeable rocks of the Biscayne aquifer are covered by a thin veneer of porous soil and aquifer water levels rise rapidly in response to rainfall. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is unconfined and generally flows toward surface waters which include the extensive system of canals in south Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western south Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida. Although four subregions were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in natural nutrient levels across the region can result in more stringent criteria levels than may naturally exist in the waters or are necessary to protect the natural system. The EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to recognize these subregions.

[16] ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/fl/fl_eco_pg.pdf 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.046
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 1. Canal Definition/Delineation As discussed in the "stream definition" section of this letter, the characteristics that make a water body a canal are the same regardless of the water body's geographical location. However, in the Proposed Rule, the EPA restricts the canal defmition to only water bodies located in the South Florida region. As previously discussed, canals Peninsula regions and stretch into the Peninsula region of Florida. However, under the Proposed Rule, the C&SF Project canals located in the Peninsula region are regulated as natural streams. It is arbitrary to limit the canal definition to an arbitrary line separating the South Florida and Peninsula regions. The EPA should modify the canal definition to include water bodies across the state. The Proposed Rule's canal nutrient criteria apply only for "South Florida" which corresponds to the EPA "South Florida Coastal Plan Ecoregion."[16] Within the South Florida Ecoregion, it was assumed that soil type could affect nutrient patterns in canals. Subsequently, four subregions were delineated using regional soils coverage and existing protection area boundaries. The four subregions are:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4235Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

• Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)

• Everglades Protection Area (EvPA)

• East - assumed to include all land east of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion

• West - assumed to include all land west of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion There is no figure in the proposed rule or Technical Support Document that shows the four regions. The EAA and EvPA boundaries are shown in the figure below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the Table on page 21 of 39 of the EAA and EvPA boundaries in Florida. See original comment letter. There is a wide range of environmental conditions within the South Florida Ecoregion. Hydrology, vegetation, land use patterns, and especially geology vary greatly in different parts of South Florida. Of particular importance for setting the canal criteria is local geology. The Biscayne aquifer is the surficial aquifer in the eastern portion of South Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) and is the primary source of potable water for the region. The highly permeable rocks of the Biscayne aquifer are covered by a thin veneer of porous soil and aquifer water levels rise rapidly in response to rainfall. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is unconfined and generally flows toward surface waters which include the extensive system of canals in South Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western South Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida. Although four subregions were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in natural nutrient levels across the region can result in more stringent criteria levels than may naturally exist in the waters or are necessary to protect the natural system. The EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to recognize these subregions. [16] ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregionslf1lf1_ecoyg.pdf 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.047
Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 1. Canal Definition/Delineation As discussed in the "stream definition" section of this letter, the characteristics that make a water body a canal are the same regard less of the water body's geographical location. However, in the Proposed Rule, the EPA restricts the canal definition to only water bodies located in the South Florida region. As previously discussed, canals constructed as part of the C&SF Project cross the boundary line of the South Florida and Peninsula regions and stretch into the Peninsula region of Florida. However, under the Proposed Rule, the C&SF Project canals located in the Peninsula region are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4236Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals regulated as natural streams. It is arbitrary to limit the canal definition to an arbitrary line separating the South Florida and Peninsula regions. The EPA should modify the canal definition to include water bodies across the state. The Proposed Rule's canal nutrient criteria apply only for "south Florida" which corresponds to the EPA "South Florida Coastal Plan Ecoregion."[16] Within the South Florida Ecoregion, it was assumed that soil type could affect nutrient patterns in canals. Subsequently, four subregions were delineated using regional soils coverage and existing protection area boundaries. The four subregions are:

• Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)

• Everglades Protection Area (EvPA)

• East -assumed to include all land east of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion

• West -assumed to include all land west of EAA/EvPA within the South Florida Ecoregion There is no figure in the proposed rule or TSD that shows the four regions. The EAA and EvPA boundaries are shown in the figure below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 22 of 36 of the EAA and EvPA boundaries of Florida. See original comment letter. There is a wide range of environmental conditions within the South Florida Ecoregion. Hydrology, vegetation, land use patterns, and especially geology vary greatly in different parts of south Florida. Of particular importance for setting the canal criteria is local geology. The Biscayne aquifer is the surficial aquifer in the eastern portion of south Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties) and is the primary source of potable water for the region. The highly permeable rocks of the Biscayne aquifer are covered by a thin veneer of porous soil and aquifer water levels rise rapidly in response to rainfall. Water in the Biscayne aquifer is unconfined and generally flows toward surface waters which include the extensive system of canals in south Florida. Because of the aquifer-canal communication water in the canals is greatly influenced by groundwater which limits the effects that land-based activities can have on canal water quality. A confined aquifer system exists in western south Florida and has much less influence on canal water quality. Therefore it is not expected that canals in eastern South Florida will have water quality characteristics similar to canals in western South Florida. Although four subregions were delineated during the development of canal criteria, no differentiation of target water quality concentrations was made for the individual subregions in the Proposed Rule. This failure to recognize the variation in natural nutrient levels across the region can result in more stringent criteria levels than may naturally exist in the waters or are necessary to protect the natural system. The EPA should modify the Proposed Rule to recognize these subregions. [16] ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wedlecoregions/fl/fl_eco-pg.pdf 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.037
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4237Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

5. No method is provided for identifying which numeric criteria are applicable for canals that span different ecoregions.
6. The canal region identified by EPA actually crosses numerous canals such that the criteria on either side of this line would be different (i.e. stream criteria on one side, canal criteria on another). This is a significant problem. The designation of a canal is not a regional issue but a waterbody type issue. Canals are man-made hydrologic conveyances and exist throughout the State. If EPA wishes to develop a canals criteria it should be waterbody based rather than regional. The determination would need to be done such that is reflective of meeting the specific designated use for canals, which would need to be identified. As of this time EPA has not identified the component that is being protected, i.e. a line between impaired and unimpaired situation. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.011
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Nutrient criteria for freshwater canals discharging into Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay must reflect the outstanding character of these waters and the unique hydromorphologic conditions of the bays' watersheds. We recommend that Total Phosphorus (TP), Total Nitrogen (TN), and Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) criteria be set to 0.01 mg/L, 1.0 mg/L, and 2.3 ug/L, respectively, for Miami-Dade County freshwater canals. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.014
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior We recommend the division of South Florida into more than four regions to better account for basins' geomorphologic differences. Freshwater canals discharging into Biscayne Bay could be incorporated into the Biscayne Bay Basin (Cooper and Lane, 1987), as outlined in Figure 1. The hydrology in this basin is highly influenced by numerous canals that alter the natural groundwater gradient and facilitate the transport of contaminants across the region (Lietz, 1999). This basin is underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer, which is an unconfined surficial aquifer (Parker et al., 1955; Fish and Stewart, 1991). Canal water elevations are highly managed and groundwater rapidly seeps into and out of adjacent canals depending on the canal stage (Genereux and Slater, 1999; Muñoz-Carpena et al., 2005). Within the Biscayne Bay Basin, the shallow aquifer is highly permeable (Fish and Stewart, 1991; Cunningham et al., 2009) and any rainfall runoff readily infiltrates the groundwater, which is hydrologically connected to the Bay (Migliaccio and Castro, 2009). Nutrient loading into canals and the Bay are further exacerbated by irrigation practices in the agricultural areas (O'Hair and Wang, 1999). Water bodies in this basin, however, are phosphorus limited, with very low values for TP (Caccia and Boyer, 2005 and 2007), because of the absence of geological sources, the limestone aquifer high affinity for chemical binding of available phosphorus (Fish and Stewart, 1991; Cunningham et al., 2009), and the generally nutrient-limited tendency exhibited by subtropical and tropical ecosystems. Consequently, we recommend that the Biscayne Bay Basin be considered a separate unit within South Florida and be assigned its own nutrient criteria to adequately protect the designated water use of canals and downstream receiving bays.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4238Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1: Left map shows National Parks Service lands in South Florida. Right map shows canals and water quality stations (dots with circles); red line delineates the Biscayne Bay Basin. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.003
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management In general, DERM supports the "Inference model" and statistical distribution approach used by USEPA to derive proposed criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. However, we believe that a single set of criteria for all south Florida canals, or even for the sub-areas described in the EPA's criteria development Technical Support Document (EPA TSD) are too broad. The criteria based from data aggregated across such a large geographic area, results in a criteria that is too restrictive in some areas, while in other areas, (i.e., within the Biscayne Bay watershed) the criteria area likely not protective of existing uses of the canals and downstream waters. We recommend a more site-specific approach to establishment of criteria, perhaps based upon hydrological or watershed attributes, in addition to soil characteristics. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.016
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212-4213 FR 75:16 Section E(2)(b) 9. DERM does not consider a single TN, TP and Chl-a criterion to be appropriate for all canals within south Florida. More subarea-specific grouping or aggregation of canals is recommended, as implicated by the information presented in Section E(2)(b). Additionally, surficial "soil" classification is not an adequate classifier of the varied conditions in canals of Miami-Dade or other areas of far south Florida. In Miami-Dade County, the waters in the canals have unconfined exchange with groundwater, through the sides, slopes and often the bottoms of the canals. This is especially true in Miami-Dade where canals intersect groundwater and the limestone substrate of the Biscayne aquifer, which is among the most transmissive in the world. It is suggested that geological and hydrological factors should be used, together with a "watershed" approach, with consideration of connected or downstream receiving wetlands and tidal waters, to identify more functional and objective regionalization of subareas. For example, canals in the surficial Biscayne aquifer, affected by groundwater seepage, should be in a separate grouping from canals farther to the north or west. This approach is supported by the fact that EPA's sub-regional approach to analyzing TN, TP and chlorophyll a (EPA TSD, Ch 4; Table 4-1 & 4-2) did identify differences among EvPA, West Coast, East Coast and EAA. These differences further underscore the point that a single set of criteria for all south Florida canals is not appropriate. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.021

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4239Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 14. It is not clear that means-based standard assessment periods or spatial scales, as specified in the IWR, should be compared for the purpose of assessing compliance to criteria derived by statistical distribution of aggregated data, unless the temporal and spatial scales are similar. It is recommended that assessments for comparison to criteria should also be based upon aggregated data from grouped monitoring stations within canals (perhaps based on a drainage basin or watershed approach), rather than on a single location, reach, or "point of discharge" approach. A single-site or "end of pipe" application of the criteria would not account for spatial or temporal variability within the canal system, even though such variation is inherent in the derivation of the criteria. This approach would reduce the likelihood that a water body would fail to meet criteria based upon an intermittent or an episodic event at a single sampling site, which would not represent the "normal" or more comprehensive condition or health of that water body. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.025
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 18. If a concern remains that some water bodies may have nutrient levels that do not meet the frequency/durationcriteria proposed, but aquatic life and other uses are not negatively affected, it is recommended that an alternative sitespecific criteria procedure, as contemplated under state rules, would be the most appropriate way to address the issue. It may not be possible to derive a universal duration/frequency formula that accommodates every potential circumstance without undermining protection of other water bodies. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter positions not supporting numeric nutrient criteria for canals and commenter concerns raised by EPA not proposing geographic-specific criteria for South Florida canals, about the availability of scientific data linking nutrients to biological responses in canals, about the representativeness of reference sites, the applicability of chlorophyll as an appropriate response variable, and the need for nitrogen criteria in South Florida flowing waters. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.3.Q.2 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4240Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# APPROACH QUESTION 2 Comment ID 0907-10.001.001
Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals as an attachment of a photo from an unknown source. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-7.001.001
Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals as an attachment of a photo from an unknown source. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-8.001.001
Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals as an attachment of a photo from an unknown source. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-9.001.001
Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information for canals as an attachment of a photo from an unknown source. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1291-1.001.006
Author Name: Brown A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4241Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about canals as Attachment 1 - record a declaration by Thomas Debusk, from DB Laboratories for Case No.: 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS from the City of Pompano Beach - Utilities Administration. 

# Comment ID 1476-3.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document by the South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1476-4.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document: Appendix A - Basic Concepts, Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1476-5.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document Appendix B Timelines of Canal Construction in the Kissimmee Watershed and South of Lake Okeechobee from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1633-1.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4242Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Technical Support Document, Appendix C Description of SFWMD Primary Water Management Features from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1633-2.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document, Appendix D Summaries of Macroinvertebrate Studies from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1633-3.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document Appendix E Fish, Reptile and Wildlife Information from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1633-4.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document Appendix F Water Quality Statistics from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1633-5.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals in the Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document Appendix G Sediment Studies from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4243Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1637-1.001.001
Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for canals called the State of Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan prepared by the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.055
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Results of the EPD Canal and Reedy Creek Studies. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Reedy Creek supported a healthy, balanced macroinvertebrate community at TP levels (~250-300 ug/L) far in excess of the proposed TP criterion for streams in the Peninsula Bioregion (107 ug/L). No improvement in SCI macroinvertebrate community metrics has been observed in the 16 years since the diversion of advanced-treated wastewater effluent from Reedy Creek, despite a marked reduction in ambient TP concentrations (decline from ~250-300 ug/L to~ 100 ug/L TP). Clear differences in macroinvertebrate community metrics were observed between sites of contrasting habitat quality in the Reedy Creek watershed. Sites with high quality habitat exhibited the most "desirable" macroinvertebrate assemblages, whereas poorer habitats supported less desirable assemblages. These findings are supported by FDEP data. Macroinvertebrate communities in sites with high habitat quality (FDEP reference streams throughout Florida) showed diverse balanced communities across a wide range of nutrient concentrations. The above factors indicate that: 1) habitat is a master factor in controlling macroinvertebrate communities, while TP (in the range investigated at Reedy Creek and at FDEP reference locations) exhibits no effect; 2) The long-term Reedy Creek data also show that marked reductions in TP to levels below the proposed criterion can be expected to yield no beneficial effect to macroinvertebrates. Building on the above findings, the EPD canal study (five South Florida canal locations surveyed quarterly for one year) demonstrates that canals exhibit consistently poor habit for macroinvertebrates (i.e., "marginal" or "poor"). As expected, macroinvertebrate communities in South Florida canals were characterized as poor across a range of nutrient (TN and TP) concentrations due to the universally poor habitat conditions. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that no improvement in canal macroinvertebrate assemblages should be expected to occur as a result of implementing the proposed TN and TP criteria, due both to 1) poor habitat conditions in canals, and 2) insensitivity of the macroinvertebrates to a wide range of TN and TP concentrations.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4244Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.131
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(3) Request for Comment and Data on Proposed Approach Statement: EPA believes the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals in this rule are protective of the designated uses, consistent with CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1). EPA solicits comment on the approaches taken by the Agency in this proposal, the data underlying those approaches, and the proposed criteria. EPA is seeking other pertinent scientific data and information that are readily available related to nutrient concentrations or nutrient responses in Class III canals in south Florida. Comment: We do not have additional information or data to provide, but reserve the right to provide such information should it become available. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.033
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. References Cited Boyer, J.N., C.R. Kelble, P.B. Ortner and D.T. Rudnick. 2009. Phytoplankton bloom status: Chlorophyll a biomass as an indicator of water quality condition in the southern estuaries of Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators , 9:S56-S67. Cunningham, K.J., J.L. Carlson, G.L. Wingard, E. Robinson and M.A., Wacher. 2004. Characterization of Aquifer Heterogeneity using cyclostratigraphy and geophysical methods in the upper part of the karstic Biscayne Aquifer, southeastern Florida. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4208. 66pp. Soneshein, R.S., 2000, Seepage Beneath Levee 30, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration, 2000. Abstract. Miller, W.L. 1978. Effects of bottom Sediments on infiltration from the Miami and Tributary canals to the Biscayne Aquifer, Dade County, FL. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report: WRI 78-36. 69 pp 

# Comment ID 2411-9.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4245Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment, the Canal Owner's Manual, by The City of Cape Coral. See original comment letter. Supplemental material for author ID 1482-1. 

# Comment ID 2412-1.001.001
Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment Chapter 4: Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals, from the TSD for U.S. EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland Surface Fresh Waters. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA thanks the commenters for the additional information provided in the way of photos, lab reports, technical support documents, canal owner’s manual, and macroinvertebrate study. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.3.Q.3 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH QUESTION 3 Comment ID 0589.001.022
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4246Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

7. SE Florida (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties) have networks of drainage canals through their Counties. Furthermore, the groundwater tables are very near the ground surface in all areas except the costal ridge. There are, however, very different soil and aquifer systems as cited in "2" above. Data are cited in the "Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List update" October 2008 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Table 30. The "Southeast Coast Biscayne Bay" dissolved phosphorous value cited (Dade and Broward counties) 0 .025 mg/I (ppm). The Biscayne aquifer is a solution riddled limestone aquifer that has such high soil conductivity (horizontal and vertical percolation) values that it is almost impossible to dewater. In this area the surface water and the groundwater are at times essentially the same water quality. Any constituent that can move through the holey limestone is in the surface water. This aquifer is fed by the phosphorous desert Everglades. It is absolutely inappropriate to utilize data from this area to represent surface water quality and especially inappropriate to establish NNC based on these values as they are highly representative of groundwater. Eastern Palm Beach County also has a high exchange with its surficial aquifer but this aquifer is mostly comprised of differrent sands. It is believed that Palm Beach County has the opposite issue with groundwater dissolved phosphorous. That is, per the same 2008 DEP report, the dissolved phosphorous cited for "Lake Worth Lagoon" is 0 .057 mg/I and the total phosphorus cited for "Palm Beach Coast" is 0.0515 mg/L. Setting the NNC at 0.042 mg/L is BELOW the reported groundwater levels. It is inappropriate to set surface water quality at or below existing groundwater levels. The entire shallow groundwater aquifer would have to be treated to meet the proposed phosphorous level for canals in Eastern Palm Beach County. Ignoring these opposing influences of the high interchange of groundwaters with surface waters appears to be arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 0714.001.005
Author Name: Alexander J. Organization: Alico, Inc. On the first point, the numeric criteria appear to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science, all from the following analysis. Table 4 of your proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida sets an arbitrary maximum for phosphorous at 42 parts per billion, shown as .042 milligrams per liter for all canals in the Florida DEP South Florida region with the exception of canals within the Everglades Protection Area, where the total phosphorous criterion is ten parts per billion. Data gathered by the South Florida Water Management District shows the total phosphorous currently in Lake Okeechobee is 200 parts per billion. Lake Okeechobee water, after being used for irrigation on South Florida farms and after being treated in permitted retention pond contains phosphorous in an amount of 70 parts per billion, a reduction of a hundred thirty parts per billion. Also, Lake Okeechobee water, after being treated in stormwater treatment areas operated by South Florida Water Management District, exits into the Everglades at 30 parts per billion, a reduction of 170 parts per billion. However, it's noteworthy that even South Florida rainfall exceeds the permitted amount of ten parts per billion as the rainfall contains 30 parts per billion. I rest my case that it's set arbitrarily without benefit of science.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4247Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0729.001.002
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport What I'm about to say is more specific than what the general comments I've been hearing. I want to target canals. InNorthport we have 213 miles of canals. We have about 213 miles and 81 miles which are wet canals. The rest are drywettish. So in these canals we've got 69 water control structures which act as mini dams segmentalizing the canals. It acts almost like mini lakes. So I'm not sure exactly where I fit into your criteria. But if I just look at the canals, let me point to two things in the canals that I think you might want to take a closer look at. One is Chlorophyll, Chlorophyll of four milligrams per liter. That is very low. In canals, manmade canals, we don't go very deep. We are using those canals for conveyance and also for storing water. Shallow canals, hot Florida sun, no tree canopy, Chlorophyll boom, you know. Four milligrams is not reasonable. I'd like you to look at that limit a little more closely. Like I said, we're compartmentalized because we've got those water control structures. They act more like lakes. And lakes, you've got 20. I think that's a little bit more reasonable. Phosphorous .042 milligrams per liter. Wow. I look at that and I look at stream. Stream is .739. Canals are made to convey water and we are cutting through the same type of terrain that the streams are, laden with phosphorous. Okay. So I don't understand where you got .04 versus the .739 that's in streams. In addition, we use Mote Marine Lab. I'm sure you've heard about Mote Marine Lab. And their detection limit for phosphorous is .05 milligram per liter. 

# Comment ID 0803.001.003
Author Name: Fernandez J. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists And the final issue that I feel, as a matter of fact, I've got a lot of experience in canals. I've been involved as an expert at testifying in some hearing on canals why they're different. I think what I see, the chlorophyll criteria for canals at four, I think that's completely inappropriate. Chlorophyll is not an appropriate water quality indicator for canals, period. And four, which is even lower than the level that they have for the most sensitive lakes I think is completely off base. So I thank you for the time, and I'll give my minute to somebody else. 

# Comment ID 0813.001.004
Author Name: Teich L. Organization: City of Fort Lauderdale Hi. Larry Teich, City of Fort Lauderdale Environment Resource Supervisor. The derivation of a nutrient criteria for the South Florida region, specifically the City of Fort Lauderdale is not scientifically valid for the following reasons:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4248Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Chlorophyll A is not an appropriate response. It's a species dependent analysis as indicated by EPA's own method 445. There are only 18 independent labs in the state that are currently certified under the NELAK protocols to conduct this analysis. Based on personal experience, the analysis variability will be significant for intralaboratory studies, especially at the proposed four PCB criteria. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.005
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill Next point, number seven in my letter is the other point I want to concentrate on, and that is the ground water in South Florida, Southeast Florida is significantly different than any other part in Florida. We've got a matrix of canals. In Dade and Broward you've got the Biscayne aquifer, a solution ridden limestone aquifer that flows essentially that there is no difference. My suspicion, but people don't measure typically the exchange water is that down there because one of the sources of the water is the nutrient desert, the phosphorous desert of the Everglades, that that is too low, that the water is very, very low, and when you use that, the phosphorous criteria is going to be too low. In Palm Beach County the opposite is true. My belief from the data I've seen is that the water levels are high, which I believe the water levels, the phosphorous levels in groundwater dissolve, that gets through the ground is actually higher than the 42 parts per billion proposed. I think it's in the 60s. There is no scientific base to try to achieve 42, nor do I think it's possible in Palm Beach County. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.008
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill Chlorophyll A, it is the indicator, good indicator. Once you establish criteria, you don't need it. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.009
Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill The last item, number 14 that I'll mention before I get to the conclusions are I took some data provided by Palm Beach County of the corporate wildlife area. The 75 percentile of that pristine area is 51 and 52 parts per billion phosphorous. The proposed criteria is 42. To put it crudely, we ain't going to make it. Conclusions are two, that the -- where are my conclusions. The proposed criteria is too low in Palm Beach County, and you need to drop the Chlorophyll A as a criteria. I hope I have gotten through, and I don't envy your position.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4249Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0841.001.003
Author Name: Antrapuppy L. Organization: Irresponsible. 42 parts per billion. I'm just going to talk about that. I've had people testify before me, just like this gentleman over here, Zephyrhills water at 60 parts per billion. I've had people testify before me that said that rain water is over 30 parts per billion. To say 42 parts per billion is irresponsible. Where are the numbers? Where are the dollars that you've had people come before you and say several billion, but I can tell you as an elected official, we have not calculated how much it would cost us on the east coast because, you know, that's coming up next year supposedly. We have not done an economic analysis at Indian Trail Improvement District to tell you how much it's going to cost to meet 42 parts per billion. We haven't even told you that. So as an elected official, I could tell you that the Palm Beach County League of Cities hasn't even discussed this issue. Let's be responsible. 42 parts per billion, one size does not fit all. 

# Comment ID 0884.001.007
Author Name: Wertephy A. Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program There is no documentation in the technical support document that any of these potential controls will meet the proposed nutrient criteria for any of the source sectors identified. There is no indication that the proposed nutrient criteria is achievable particularly in Palm Beach County. The biggest line item of annual cost in this Table is associated with municipal WWTPs which will only achieve 3 mg/L of TN and 0.1 mg/1 of TP compared to the proposed criteria of 1 .6 mg/1 for TN and 0.042 mg/1 of TP (South Florida Canals). Many of the WWTPs provide reuse water directly to recharge the lakes used for irrigation system supply within development projects. Unless the WWTP facilities are upgraded, the reuse water could cause the urban (private and public) users to violate the proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 0921.001.005
Author Name: Coyle F. Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners Applying EPA's currently proposed canal criteria, one federal preserve and three state preserves in Collier County would not meet the proposed standards. These preserve areas have minimal or no development activities within their boundaries and are some of the least human impacted water bodies within the County. This indicates the standard may be over-protective. 

# Comment ID 0935.001.002
Author Name: Perez A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4250Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities Chlorophyll a criteria are not proposed for rivers and streams in other watershed regions of Florida. EPA proposes such criteria for canal systems, but cannot "infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient - specific response variables in Florida streams" (p. 4193, Federal Register proposed rule). This inconsistency casts doubt on the usefulness of chlorophyll a as a nutrient impairment indicator. 

# Comment ID 0974.001.006
Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 6. The following are EPA's proposed criteria for artificial canals in Florida: Chlorophyll a - 4 .0 ug/L Total phosphorus ­ 0.042 mg/L Total nitrogen -1 .6 mg/L This is a very low chlorophyll value for a managed artificial canal, especially considering that physical factors like light availability and residence time are more likely to control whether or not there are nuisance algal conditions . The TP criteria is actually lower than that for natural streams. It is unreasonable to set such stringent standards for manmade waterways that have been created for the purpose of drainage, flood control, irrigation, and navigation. 

# Comment ID 1088-1.001.004
Author Name: Henry B. Organization: Broward County Proposed Numeric Criteria for Chl a The EPA has proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Chl a as a response variable in south Florida canals, in contrast with the agency's criteria for Florida streams, based on flow regimes and stated evidence that canals are susceptible to impairment due to excessive chlorophyll a concentrations. The EPA has concluded that there is a relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll a based on the number of canals that have been listed as impaired in the State of Florida due to measured chlorophyll a concentrations. There are four such canals in Broward County, with only one having been assessed for nutrient TMDLs to establish an appropriate limit. This assessment produced very poor R2 values showing there was not a significant stressor response between chlorophyll a and nutrients in this canal. We expect to find similar results for the other Broward Canals currently listed. Chlorophyll a concentrations in south Florida canals might better be correlated to endogenous nutrient processes, namely internal nutrient cycling associated with benthic nutrient fluxes. The continual recycling of nutrients between the benthos and the water column is an important means of nutrient regeneration and is certainly a significant mechanism by which chlorophyll a biomass is produced and maintained within warm, shallow south Florida canals.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4251Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1211-1.001.003
Author Name: Threet J. Organization: Alico, Inc. On the first point, "the Numeric Criteria appears to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science", Table 4 of EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida sets an arbitrary maximum for Phosphorus at 42 parts per billion (shown as ,042 mg/L) for all canals in FDEP's South Florida region. The only exception is canals within the Everglades Protection Area, where the Total Phosphorus criterion of 10 parts per billion currently applies. Data gathered by South Florida Water Management District shows that the Total Phosphorus currently in Lake Okeechobee is 200 parts per billion. Lake Okeechobee water, used for irrigation on South Florida farms and after treatment in permitted retention ponds contains Phosphorus at the amount of 70 parts per billion, a reduction of 130 ppb. Lake Okeechobee water, after being treated in the Stormwater Treatment Areas operated by South Florida Water Management District, exits into the Everglades at 30 parts per billion, a reduction of 170 ppb. It is noteworthy that even South Florida rainfall contains 30 parts per billion of Phosphorus, which exceeds the proposed permitted amount by 10 ppb. The EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria have been set arbitrarily without benefit of science. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.004
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 3. The soils and underlying geologic formations of the EAA are unique in the South Florida region with high nitrogen content contributing to higher nitrogen in canals through the EAA, similar to the high phosphate regions in other areas of Florida that EPA has recognized by separate regional nutrient criteria. EPA has previously found that nitrogen is not a cause of impairment in the EAA as stated in EPA's TMDL Protocol Document, 2007. EPA noted then that it was "unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances of flora and fauna in Class III canals in the EAA." 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.009
Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 8. There is no reasonable relationship between the proposed Chlorophyll a criteria and the designated uses of the Class III canals in the EAA. EPA does not propose a Chlorophyll a criteria for any other canals or streams in the State, even in clear water spring runs. EPA recognizes the influence of color when proposing Chlorophyll a criteria for lakes yet ignores this in the Class III canals of the EAA. At the levels proposed, Chlorophyll a is not visible, thus not interfering with any recreational use and no data has been presented demonstrating that Chlorophyll a above the proposed criteria will be detrimental to aquatic life in any stream or canal in the state.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4252Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.079
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • Some of the data used to derive the canal criterion were taken from canals that were excavated below the soil horizon and extend into the Biscayne aquifer. The Biscayne aquifer is the unconfined surficial aquifer in south Florida and the source of much of the region's potable water. When the water level in the aquifer is higher than the canal water level, groundwater will flow into the canal and may significantly affect water quality in the canal. Under these conditions data obtained from sampling canals reflect what is actually the quality of the water in the surficial aquifer, which differs significantly from that of typical surface waters in south Florida. In particular the proposed chlorophyll threshold of 4 ug/L is very low even when compared to chlorophyll concentrations in many relatively unimpaired water bodies. It does not make sense that the proposed chlorophyll a criterion for canals is more stringent than the clear lake criterion, and the phosphorus criterion is more stringent than any of the TP criteria in the four streams and rivers regions. There is nothing to suggest that canals are more sensitive to these parameters than other water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.080
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Canals • The chlorophyll a criterion is not appropriate for south Florida canals and is not derived based upon sound scientific methods. The value of 4 ug/L is within the range of practical quantification limits (PQL) of 3 to 5 ug/L, as identified in audits conducted by FDEP, and measured data below these values are suspect. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.151
Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Methodology Based on the available information for canals, EPA chose a nutrient concentration distribution-based approach using data from only those canals that have been determined to support the applicable designated use. This is the same approach that EPA examined in setting nutrient targets for Florida streams (EPA, 2010a, page 140). Original comment letter contains additional information for canals in Table 3. Proposed nutrient criteria for Florida canals. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4253Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals No supporting evidence is provided to indicate that these targets are necessary to protect the designated use of the canals. A criterion for total nitrogen is proposed, but a substantial portion of the south Florida canals are phosphorus limited. Water bodies should be managed to control the limiting nutrient where a limiting nutrient has been identified. Reductions to the loadings of the non-limiting nutrient will not improve the health of the water body, and will only force the expenditure of scarce resources for no benefit. In addition, it does not make sense that the proposed chlorophyll a criterion for canals is more stringent than the clear lake criterion and the phosphorus criterion is more stringent than any of the TP criteria in the four streams and rivers regions. There is nothing to suggest that canals are more sensitive to these parameters than other water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.004
Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 2-2) EPA's proposed chlorophyll a criterion for South Florida canals is not biologically sound. It is unclear what biological communities the criteria are intended to protect, and again there is no clear relationship between the criteria proposed and biological response. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.003
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works EPA chose chlorophyll a as a criterion to be used as a nutrient response variable solely based on the distribution of chlorophyll a in canals without identifying a chlorophyll a concentration that indicates an algae bloom in a scientifically defensible manner. Chlorophyll a does not consider systems in which non-photosynthetic bacterial growth rather than algae growth is the primary response to nutrient enrichment. Chlorophyll a may also be less useful as an indicator in places where nuisance vegetation is the primary response. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.018
Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) The inappropriateness of using a stream methodology for canals, is most apparent in the setting of chlorophyll a values for EAA canals. The chlorophyll a value in EAA canals has been proposed at 4.0 ug/L, which is excessively low and arbitrary. Although EPA uses its stream methodology to set the numeric values for canals, it only sets chlorophyll a values for canals and not for streams. Chlorophyll a is not an accurate indicator of water quality because it bears no relationship to the biological responses

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4254Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals within a water body. [Debusk 2010]. EPA itself admits as much when it states, The ability to establish protective criteria for both causal and response variables depends on available data and scientific approaches to evaluate these data. Whereas, there are data available for water column chlorophyll a (phytoplankton) and algal thickness on various substrates (periphyton) for certain types of streams in Florida, there arecurrently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrientspecific response variables in Florida streams. [EPA, Technical Support Document for the Nutrient Rule, 2010]. Despite this statement and EPA's reliance on its stream methodology for canals, EPA arbitrarily set a chlorophyll a value for south Florida canals. Chlorophyll a is not a defensible indicator of nutrient impairment in canals. In EPA's own statistical analysis between chlorophyll a and nitrogen and regression, the analysis results in a negative regression. A negative regression between these parameters indicates the chlorophyll a concentrations in the EAA are not influenced by nutrient concentrations. For these reasons, as well as those contained in the EPD Technical Comment Paper, EPA must reassess its methodology for south Florida canals, including the appropriateness of developing a chlorophyll a concentration for the EAA. At a minimum, EPA must explain its rationale for regulating chlorophyll a in south Florida canals only, but not elsewhere in the state. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.010
Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts iv. There is no Relationship between Chlorophyll-a and Nutrients For South canals, EPA specifically proposed criteria for Chlorophyll-a as a response indicator of nutrients. However, EPA has failed to scientifically demonstrate that there is a relationship between Chlorophyll-a and total phosphorous and total nitrogen in flowing waters. DEP has developed several lines of evidence to demonstrate Chlorophyll-a is linked to phosphorus and nitrogen in lakes. EPA has failed to conduct a similar assessment to scientifically justify Chlorophyll-a as a response indicator for nutrients in flowing waters. Simply stated, EPA is making the assumption that lakes and flowing waters are the same. Such an approach is premature without scientific evidence to support such a relationship. There is no relationship between nutrients and biological response in flowing waters. Therefore, it is clear that flowing waters and lakes are not the same. An approach based on assumptions without supporting evidence is an arbitrary approach. Finally, the proposed South Florida canal criteria; including the Chlorophyll-a criteria, has not been subject to peer review and were not addressed in the Technical Support Document. EPA is arbitrarily applying lake-like criteria without any scientific support. This is especially troubling considering that the Chlorophyll-a criterion for South Florida canals is more protective than the Chlorophyll-a criterion for most lakes. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.072

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4255Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 2. Chosen chlorophyll a level has no demonstrated relationship to use attainment. EPA has proposed that a 4 ug/l chlorophyll a criterion be applicable to all southern canals. EPA acknowledged that the selected criterion is not based upon use impacts or any stressor-response assessments. TSD, at 4-6. ("Such criteria might be scientifically defensible but have proved to be elusive."). EPA's stressor-response evaluation used a chlorophyll a target of 20 ug/l chlorophyll a. The projected acceptable TP and TN values for assuring compliance with a 20 ug/l chlorophyll a level were considerably higher than those proposed in this rulemaking. TSD, at 4-7 (projecting a TP level of 0.124 mg/l and a TN level of 3.6 mg/l). The proposed 4 ug/l chlorophyll a criterion is more restrictive than any of the chlorophyll a lake standards that were deemed by EPA to be sufficiently protective for those waters (6- 20 ug/l chlorophyll a). The chosen criterion is lower than the oligotrophic lake objectives recommended by EPA for pristine lakes even in the Sandhill region (6 ug/l chlorophyll a). There is no rational scientific basis for EPA's recommended chlorophyll a criterion for canals. These are man-made structures that provide varying habitat and uses, depending upon their physical setting, hydrology and operation. Given that the nutrient levels considered acceptable for canals are higher than those for several lake categories, the amount of chlorophyll a growth occurring in these waters must be controlled by factors other than nutrient level. The proposed chlorophyll a criterion for these waters is not tied to any use protection need and is far more restrictive than the lakes EPA has identified as the most sensitive in the State. EPA has not provided any basis for selection of this more restrictive response variable. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.016
Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society EPA's use of chlorophyll a criteria for south Florida canals is not appropriate and it is not clear what biological community the criteria are designed to protect. Chlorophyll a in the water column is not an appropriate indicator of algae growth in canals due to the dynamics of algae in canals. 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.007
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport For example, shallow depths, long residence time, sunlight exposure and hot dry weather in a canal can greatly increase chlorophyll concentrations even if total nitrogen and total phosphorus is well below the proposed levels. Many of the manmade canals were constructed for drainage conveyance and there is little that can be done to control

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4256Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals chlorophyll if all efforts have been made to reduce TN and TP to naturally occurring levels. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.008
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• Chlorophyll a in the water column is not an appropriate indicator of algae growth in canals due to the unique dynamics of algae in canals. 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.026
Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Chlorophyll a Criteria for Canals The EPA has shown no relationship between proposed criteria levels and biological responses in Florida's canals. Additionally, chlorophyll in the water column is not an appropriate indicator of algae growth in canals due to the unique dynamics of algae in canals (FDEP 2010b). The EPA is proposing chlorophyll criteria for canals that is more stringent than Florida's pristine lakes. They have applied lake criteria to manmade canals; how is this justifiable? How did the EPA come up with its chlorophyll a criteria of 4 ug/L when SFWMD itself has very limited canal data, and there again, how can the criteria be protective if you are unsure of what comprises your ecological community? The criteria appears to be largely arbitrary. Lastly, there does not appear to be any documentation that this part of the EPA's proposed criteria underwent a peer review (FDEP 2010e). 

# Comment ID 1688-1.001.009
Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Inclusion of Chlorophyll a It is unclear why EPA chose to include a Chlorophyll a criterion applicable to South Florida Canals, but not rivers and streams across the rest of the State. This is also unnecessary as the FDEP already has adopted and approved Chlorophyll a criteria for assessment purposes contained in the Impaired Waters Rule. EPA would need to include a Chlorophyll a criteria if it were setting up a water quality criteria structure similar to the one provided for Lakes, but should not include one in South Florida without such reasoning. Regarding the derivation of the Chlorophyll a proposal, the data set contains approximately 5-fold fewer stations than

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4257Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals the nutrient data sets. Furthermore, the chlorophyll a criterion based on the 75th percentile is at (or within) the range of PQLs for chlorophyll a. The WMD's freshwater Chlorophyll a MDL is 1.0 ug/L, and Collier County has an MDL level for Chlorophyll a of 3.0 ug/L. It appears that the statistical analyses performed for chlorophyll a may be highly skewed by data with concentrations between the MDL and PQL. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.014
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District No Data that Nitrogen Causes Impairments within the Everglades or EAA. USEPA bases its proposal on the assumption that TN concentration in excess of 1.6 mg/L will impact designated uses of water resources in the canals and downstream areas. There is no evidence that the naturally-elevated concentration of nitrogen in EAA surface waters have adverse effects in EAA canals or in downstream waters of the Everglades. In fact, USEPA admits that it has no evidence of nitrogen adversely canals in the EAA. (USEPA 2010; USEPA 2007a). The failure of USEPA to recognize the unique nature of EAA soils and management, and the attempt to characterize the high concentrations of TN that occur in this region as causing impairment of the designated use of surface waters is arbitrary and capricious.

• USEPA proposed nutrient criteria for TN in EAA canals despite evidence that nitrogen does not cause impairment in waters of the EAA or the Everglades.

• USEPA previously declared that there is no apparent link between nitrogen concentrations in the water and adverse impacts to the designated use of water for fish and wildlife. USEPA previously stated that it was ". . . unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances of flora and fauna in Class III canals within the EAA" in its proposed TMDL for dissolved oxygen and nutrients in the Everglades (USEPA 2008). As a result, no TMDLs were proposed for nitrogen within the EAA or the Everglades Protection Area (EPA).

• This conclusion was based on the finding of no apparent adverse effects related to TN and the determination that nitrogen did not unduly enhance biological productivity in Everglades or the EAA because a) nitrogen is readily available in this system from the soils and the water column, and b) bacteria and algae within these areas have the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere (USEPA 2007a).

• Based on these considerations, the attempt to establish a total nitrogen criterion within the EAA is not based on scientific evidence and is capricious, and the proposed concentration values for total nitrogen in the EAA are arbitrary, if not potentially detrimental to the endemic ecology. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.031
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Ability of the Rule to Protect Designated Uses On page 146 of the proposed Rule, USEPA requested comments as to whether "the proposed criteria are protective of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4258Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients." False Positive Rates The false positive rates reflect the likelihood that a site will be declared as impaired based on applying the proposed frequency and duration tests to the data collected. Use of the 75th percentile as the basis for the criterion results in unacceptable rates of false positive results. Use of the 90th percentile values reduces the percentage of false positive results to statistically sound levels. For example, if the criteria developed using the 75th percentile are applied to each water body and year, the resulting false positive rates are shown in Table 4: The long-term arithmetic average of annual geometric means is assumed to be across seven years. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 4. False Positive Rate (likelihood that a non-impaired site will be declared as impaired) for nutrient criteria based on the 75th percentile for WBID-Year estimates from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. These results indicate a significant false positive rate occurs using the proposed methodology. The false positive rates are increased even further (Table 5) when the more appropriate station-year variability estimates are used instead of the water body-year estimates that were used by USEPA: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 5. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria based on the 75th percentile for Station-Year estimates from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. If the criteria are based on the 90th percentile instead of the 75th percentile, then the rate of false positives decreases to statistically acceptable levels. The same frequency and duration tests of the mean are used, but with the station standard deviation (Table 6). Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 6. False Positive Rate for nutrient criteria based on the 90th percentile for Station-Year estimates from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. Testing Multiple Sites within a Water Body Based on similar analyses, it was determined that if the criteria are tested against all sites within a water body, then the false positive rate increases significantly. For example, for three sampling stations within a water body the probability of declaring at least one station out of compliance is 53% for chlorophyll, 45% for TN, and 66% for TP. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.040
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4259Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Chlorophyll Criteria are Inappropriate for Florida Canals. The rule (USEPA 2010b) proposes that chlorophyll concentrations should be set at 4.0 ugm/L instead of 20.0 ugm/L. No information is provided to relate such a low concentration of chlorophyll to impairment of designated use in canals. A threshold based on the ability to support productive fisheries and other resources may be more appropriate for canals, especially during periods when water is not flowing. As with lakes, consideration should be given to other water quality parameters such as color and alkalinity as a basis for determining acceptable chlorophyll concentrations. The primary justification provided in the Proposed Rule for including chlorophyll criteria for canals was: "USEPA considered chlorophyll to be an appropriate indicator of nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of the observed seasonal flow regimes, particularly during the relatively drier winter months when flows are relatively lower and canal water residence time is relatively higher (as compared to wetter, summer months)." This theory may explain why seasonal fluctuations in chlorophyll concentrations occur in canals, but provides no indication that existing chlorophyll concentrations cause undesirable biological responses. (Dilks 2010). Seasonal fluctuations in chlorophyll concentrations occur within canals, but this is not an indication that existing chlorophyll concentrations cause undesirable biological responses. The Proposed Rule states that "Based on the available information for canals, EPA determined that the most scientifically sound way to derive protective numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida's canals is to use a similar approach to what EPA used to derive numeric nutrient criteria for streams." However USEPA recognized the limitation of developing chlorophyll criteria for streams (USEPA 2010b). "The ability to establish protective criteria for both causal and response variables depends on available data and scientific approaches to evaluate these data. Whereas, there are data available for water column chlorophyll (phytoplankton) and algal thickness on various substrates (periphyton) for certain types of streams in Florida, there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrientspecific response variables in Florida streams." (USEPA 2010b, p. 44) This conclusion ("no available approaches . . .") is equally valid for canals. Because USEPA has no scientifically supported thresholds for chlorophyll in canals, chlorophyll should not be included in the canal criteria. USEPA's documentation for lakes states that a chlorophyll concentration of 20 ug/L, which represents the borderline condition between mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions for the "Trophic State Index" (TSI) metric, is desirable for supporting balanced biological communities. This is a marked contrast to the proposed 4 ug/L criterion for south Florida canals. Such a low chlorophyll level would probably depress primary and secondary ecosystem productivity and thus impact biological communities and fisheries (see below). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.041
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4260Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Chlorophyll Should Not be Used to Determine Impairment within the EAA The secondary justification provided in the Proposed Rule for including a chlorophyll criterion for canals was "evidence that canals are susceptible to impairment due to excessive chlorophyll based on the number of canals on Florida's Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list with chlorophyll cited as the parameter of concern." None of the impaired water bodies listed in the EAA mention chlorophyll as a source of impairment (Dilks 2010). Furthermore, USEPA has previously acknowledged that phytoplankton are not considered an important source of impairment in EAA canals. USEPA's (2007a) Proposed TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Everglades, which specifically addresses nutrient impairment in EAA canals, does not contain a single mention of either chlorophyll or phytoplankton. The report does list potential ramifications of nutrient impairment: "The increase in nutrients has resulted in documented impacts to several trophic levels of aquatic life -including microbial, periphyton, macrophyte, invertebrate, and vertebrate communities-that constitute exceedances of the FDEP's Class III narrative nutrient criterion". None of these impairments are addressed by a chlorophyll criterion (Dilks 2010). Comments provided on the TMDL for the EAA canals (Federico et al, 2008) cite work conducted by Richardson et al (2007) that examines the response of the Everglades to nutrient enrichment. Their analysis showed that, while the macroinvertebrate community was negatively affected by increasing phosphorus concentrations, algal indicators decreased in response to increasing nutrient levels. This conclusion was consistent with the information provided in the Proposed Rule, which showed a negative correlation between observed phosphorus and chlorophyll concentrations observed in EAA canals (Dilks 2010). Further evidence that impairment due to chlorophyll is not occurring in canals includes the following:

• Studies show that chlorophyll concentrations above the proposed 4 ug/L threshold are not readily discerned in systems that have colored water (DB Environmental, 2010). • The proposed chlorophyll criterion is derived based on a questionable data set (see analysis by DB Environmental, 2010).

• The proposed link between the 4 ug/L concentration and impairment to designated use is not supported by any known data or scientific literature. No chlorophyll criterion was developed or applied to streams, springs or spring runs for similar reasons.

• The proposed chlorophyll criterion was not developed based on known relationships to impairment in south Florida water bodies, but rather was statistically derived from a selective data set that was not representative of the South Florida region, and particularly irrelevant to the EAA. Chlorophyll was then suggested as a surrogate measure of impairment to justify selection of TN and TP criteria.

• There is a need to link proposed chlorophyll values to color and alkalinity of water in canals, as is done for lakes, before such a criteria could be applied across a range of colored and clear canals. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.042
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Chlorophyll Concentrations Related to Productivity and Fisheries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4261Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Besides water conveyance, the primary designated use of south Florida canals is recreational and sport fishing. Swimming, although a possible use of canals, is actively discouraged by common sense, water management agencies and local health departments (see below). A certain minimum level of primary production (i.e., phytoplankton, as measured by chlorophyll) is required to support fisheries. The scientific literature demonstrates the relationship between chlorophyll and biomass of numerous fish species in Florida lakes (e.g, Bachmann et al. 1996), and shows that mesotrophic or eutrophic conditions support the best populations of most desirable fish species. The use of chlorophyll as a response variable for assessing nutrient impairment is based on empirical relationships between nutrients and chlorophyll in lakes across multiple trophic states (Carlson 1977). It is well-known that fish biomass is correlated with trophic state, algal productivity and nutrient concentrations in lakes and reservoirs. For example, Bachmann et al. 1996 analyzed data from 60 Florida lakes and found positive correlations between nutrients (TN and TP) and fish biomass across a range of chlorophyll concentrations from 1 ug/L to 241 ug/L. While largemouth biomass and bluegill frequently occurred in lakes from oligotrophic to hypereutrophic conditions, other important sportfish such as the redear sunfish and the black crappie showed a strong increase in both frequency of occurrence and standing crop biomass with increasingly eutrophic conditions (Bachmann et al. 1996) Sport fisheries likely do not reach peak biomass at TP levels < 100 ug/L (Ney 1996). Reservoirs that have undergone nutrient reductions (oligotrophication) have also seen declines in sport fish biomass (Maceina and Bayne 2001, Ney 1996, Stockner et al 2000). While the relationship may be less clear in streams (Hoyer and Canfield 1991) than in lakesand reservoirs, it could be argued that the canal environment is much more like a linear lake or reservoir than a freeflowing stream (FDEP 2008). However, the influence of connectivity between southeast canals and the vast Everglades marshes is more important than specific nutrient concentrations in these canal waters. Connectivity between Everglades marshes and canals during high water periods allow large fishes to exploit macroinvertebrate and small fish prey items found in the marshes. Large fish, small fish and macroinvertebrate densities were all higher within 5 m of canals than further into the marsh, in both wet and dry seasons in the Everglades (Rehage and Trexler 2006). For obvious reasons, extreme draw-down events in the Everglades marshes can cause high mortality among large fishes (Kushlan 1974, Nelson and Loftus 1996). The deep-water canal environment functions as important dry-season refugia from the adjacent marsh for both large and small fishes. The fisheries data indicate that chlorophyll is not an appropriate response variable for evaluating impairment of aquatic life uses by nutrients in South Florida canal environments (Figure 3). Moreover, there is no direct evidence that nutrient concentrations are causing stress to biota within canals themselves, apart from other stresses (e.g. poor habitat), nor is there adequate understanding of canal biota beyond the fisheries resources. Despite differences in nutrients and chlorophyll, robust fisheries occur among all nutrient/chlorophyll regimes, poor macroinvertebrates occur among all nutrient/ chlorophyll regimes, etc. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Largemouth bass catch rates as a function of annual TP concentration in several southeast Florida canals from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.043

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4262Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Chlorophyll Does Not Significantly Impair Use of Canals for Swimming Whereas maintenance of fisheries suggests a need to provide some level of primary productivity in the aquatic system, use of canals for swimming and recreation is likely limited more by public perception and general aesthetic considerations than due to any impairment caused by nutrients. Constructed canals are typically straight and steep-walled for conveyance, lending themselves to habitation by hardy and stress-tolerant species like water hyacinths, catfish, and alligators. They are often built to provide drainage and flood protection and located in close proximity to developed land and highways. Therefore canals often have clarity, coloration, and odor conditions that inherently make them less desirable for recreation. Heiskary and Walker (1998) compared measured water quality parameters (chlorophyll, TP, etc) with user survey data about suitability of lakes for swimming, etc. Other issues in south Florida canals such as fears of alligators and snakes, drowning due to steep canal banks, becoming entangled or injured by obstructions in the canal, etc. would trump any concerns about water quality and aesthetics. Recent experiments conducted by DB Environmental (2010) have shown that concentrations of chlorophyll above the proposed criterion level of 4 ug/L are not noticeable to the naked eye. In the highly colored waters of the EAA, increased chlorophyll is not evident at concentrations < 100 ug/L (Figure 4). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. Effect of chlorophyll concentration on transparency and aesthetic characteristics of Miami canal waters (true color of 158 PCU), collected from an unimpaired WBID north of S8. Various corrected chlorophyll levels were obtained by amending the settled Miami canal water (native corrected chlorophyll concentration of 3.4 ug/L) with aliquots of the green alga, Nannochloropsis. The USEPA-proposed chlorophyll threshold is 4 ug/L (annual mean) or 15.8 ug/L (single sample). Water depth in the secchi bucket is 0.3m. Photos were taken outdoors in natural light. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.047
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District No Causal Relationships Were Shown Between Nutrients and Designated Use. USEPA failed to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between nutrient concentrations and impairment of a water body in terms of a designated use. To do so would require the development of numerical definitions for each use, in terms of those nutrients, prior to establishing that some other level of those same nutrients could be impairing that function. The proposed criteria are based instead on a comparison to canal reference sites which are, by definition, "unused." This makes them inappropriate points of reference for determining the nutrient levels at which a "used" water

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4263Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals body is no longer usable. They are suitable only for determining the threshold at which a primarily undisturbed body of water can be considered a "used" body. Neither statistically significant nor causal relationships were identified by EPA in preparation of the proposed rule between nutrient concentrations and resulting environmental condition and/or support of designated use. Chapra (2009) provides a detailed discussion and references as to why such concentration relationships cannot be established and why it is incorrect to set a TP concentration criterion in order to manage the eutrophication or phytoplankton biomass in rivers/streams. Chapra's logic would also extend to canals. Nutrient loading and morphological features (e.g. habitat, stream order, flow, velocity, canopy cover, channel width and depth) affect the development and applicability of nutrient and biological response relationships and therefore nutrient criteria. Nutrient loading and non-nutrient factors affect the relationship between attainment of the proposed nutrient criteria and the designated use. For example, FDEP has demonstrated that natural factors (the proportion of wetlands and color) explain a large portion of the variance in TN in benchmark streams that have been verified to meet their designated use (FDEP 2010). In cases where shoreline or riparian habitat has been highly degraded, attainment of the designated use has no relation to nutrient levels. Biological health responds to climatic and other natural cycles, and changes in available habitat (Fore et al. 2007b). Neither FDEP nor USEPA has presented evidence that the biological response to nutrients will be measureable except in cases of gross pollution. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.050
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Phosphorus Concentration in Canals Upstream of Stormwater Treatment Areas Many canals discharge to estuaries along Florida's south, east and west coasts, while other canals discharge into freshwater wetlands or lakes. The primary canals in the EAA deliver water to a network of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) that remove nutrients from surface waters before discharge into the Everglades Protection Area. Applying criteria with low nutrient concentrations (e.g., 42 ug/L TP) upstream of the STAs will make these facilities inefficient and obsolete. We concur with the notion that the public investment in regional treatment facilities (the STAs), as well as the geologic differences between the EAA and coastal areas, require that nutrient criteria be established for EAA canals separately from criteria for canals in other parts of south Florida that do not have downstream nutrient removal facilities.
A previous USEPA proposal suggested that 100 ug/L is an appropriate TP criterion for inflow waters to STAs, a value that was derived by the USEPA to support a proposed TMDL for dissolved oxygen and nutrients in portions of the EAA (USEPA 2007). We provided a critical review of that TMDL proposal to USEPA (Federico et al 2008, DBE 2008) and found several areas where USEPA's data analysis should be revised before setting nutrient limits on canals in the EAA (Appendix D). First, STA outflow P concentrations in the range of 10-20 ug/L have been shown to be insensitive to reduced P mass loading rate (Juston and DeBusk 2006). Second, the data analysis used in the TMDL proposal included only a small portion of the data available at that time (i.e., data through 2007) (see Appendix D). Additional data for 2007-2009 are now available for analysis of STA performance. A recent report by SFWMD, the agency that operates these nutrient removal facilities, stated that "inflow TP generally accounted for only a small amount of the variation in treatment performance. Much of the unexplained variance in outflow TP is attributed to other

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4264Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals factors such as differences in soil characteristics, the occurrence and duration of dryout, or changes in plant community species composition" (Pietro et al., 2010). There is no direct relationship between inflow concentration and outflow concentration from STAs in the range of outflow concentrations required by the Everglades Protection Area. In their 2007 TMDL proposal, the USEPA acknowledged several aspects of nutrient dynamics in the EAA that run counter to the current numeric nutrient criteria proposed for that area. First, the USEPA states that "because the Everglades marsh is phosphoruslimited, nitrogen has not been a concern. There is no numeric water quality criterion for total nitrogen in the Everglades. USEPA is unaware of any data indicating that nitrogen causes imbalances in flora or fauna in Class III canals within the EAA." This contradicts the assertion in the current numeric nutrient criteria proposal that the TN criterion be applied throughout the south Florida region, including the EAA. Second, the USEPA states "For the EAA WBIDs, the 100 ppb target was derived as what is necessary at STA inflows in order to protect downstream waters" (USEPA 2007). This concentration is over 2-fold higher that the TP criteria in the current USEPA proposal. This contradiction shows clearly that the criteria concentrations proposed by USEPA are arbitrary values that are not supported by sound science or independent verification. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.052
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Overprotective Criteria May Cause a Decline in Fisheries Productivity Fisheries data indicate that chlorophyll is not an appropriate response variable for evaluating impairment of aquatic life uses by nutrients in south Florida canal environments. Compliance with an overprotective criterion would reduce nutrient concentrations in streams and canals below levels necessary for the protection of the designated use of those waters for recreational and sport fishing. Reduction in chlorophyll concentrations could lead to a decline in fisheries productivity, since fish standing stocks in oligotrophic water bodies are lower than in meso-eutrophic water bodies (Bachman et al. 1996). While lakes and canals do not appear to show any direct relationship between catch rates of largemouth bass and ambient nutrient concentrations, other fish species, such as redear sunfish, exhibit higher standing stocks in mesotrophic lakes than in oligotrophic lakes. USEPA utilizes chlorophyll as the only biological response variable indicative of nutrient enrichment for South Florida canals. However, because the goal is to protect overall ecological condition and designated uses, it is important to evaluate relationships among nutrients, chlorophyll and fisheries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has conducted surveys of fish populations in canals throughout southeast Florida, and while the number of canals sampled has changed over time, a quantitative method (electro-shocking) has been used consistently (Shafland et al. 2001). The available data indicate that south Florida canals support excellent fisheries over a wide range of nutrient (TP) concentrations. In 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005, the West Palm Beach Canal had largemouth bass catch rates of 0.8-1.01 fish per minute (fpm), considered "excellent" fishing conditions (>0.6 fpm), while TP concentrations have been 80-171 ug/L TP (range of annual means at S5A and S-155 for 2000-2005). During 1997, 1998 and 1999 the catch rates of largemouth bass in the urban portion of the Hillsboro Canal (Shafland et al 2001) were among the highest reported ( 0.91-1.56 fpm). Hillsboro Canal has also had

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4265Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals the highest TN and TP levels among Broward County freshwater canals, and the highest increases in nutrients from the western portion of the canal near S-39, to the eastern limit of fresh water at G-56 (Broward County Water Quality Department of Environmental Protection 2001). During the years 1997, 1998 and 1998, annual mean TP concentrations at S-39 were 33, 41, and 52 ug/L, respectively. The C-111 canal produced 1.85 and 0.62 fpm in 1997 and 1999 at TP concentrations of 6 and 8 ug/L, respectively. Tamiami Canal was sampled 8 years between 1995 and 2003, and had an average catch rate (0.38 fpm) slightly lower than the state-wide average (0.41 fpm) for largemouth bass. Total P in the Tamiami canal was also low (11 ± 1 ug/L). The 1998-2002 composite catch rate for all the southeast canals surveyed was 0.56 fpm, across a wide range of TP concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.034
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Canals (Section III.E) 1. The chlorophyll a criterion is not appropriate for south Florida canals and is not derived based upon sound scientific methods. The value of 4 micrograms/l is within the range of practical quantification limits (PQL) of 3 to 5 micrograms/l, and measured data below these values are suspect. 2. The approach of assigning a value of one-half the detection limit to chlorophyll a values that are below the lab specified detection limit is arbitrary. The data set provided does not identify which values were computed in this manner, but based on the values provided, it appears that a significant percentage are below the detection limit and also well below the PQL. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.132
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA is soliciting comment specifically on the selection of criteria parameters for TN, TP, and chlorophyll a; development of criteria for Class III canals across south Florida; and the conclusion that the proposed criteria for Class III canals are protective of designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients. Comment: As discussed above, we do not believe that a chlorophyll a target for canals is appropriate. The low observed chlorophyll a values observed in the "reference" canals is more likely due to the fact that the canals are predominantly phosphorus limited and they are in areas that are naturally low in phosphorus. We strongly recommend that the criterion for chlorophyll a be dropped as a nutrient target. In addition, we do not believe that it is prudent to propose numeric criteria for a nutrient parameters that are non-limiting in the water body. Total nitrogen targets are unnecessary in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4266Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals phosphorus limited waters, and TP targets are unnecessary in nitrogen limited waters. Focusing efforts to reduce loadings of a non-limiting parameter will waste money and resources with little to no benefit to the impaired water body. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.036
Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau b. Nitrogen Level in the Everglades Agricultural Area's (EAA) Muck Soil is Inherently High The criteria proposed by the EPA for South Florida canals (including the EAA) is 1.6 mg/L. As with any other highly organic soil, the soil in the EAA is naturally high in nitrogen and meeting a standard of 1.6 mg/L will be unattainable and out of the bounds of the historic levels for the sub-region. Soils in the EAA have nitrogen concentrations ranging from 2% - 4% by weight. This concentration equates to water levels of 4 parts per billion or higher on a regular basis.[72] Much of this nitrogen is utilized by extensive cropping in the EAA, thus reducing or eliminating the need to add additional nitrogen to grow crops. In 1989, landowners in the EAA created the Environmental Protection District (EPD). The EPD is a taxing body, with a mission to conduct scientific research on environmental matters related to air, water, and land management practices.[73] Extensive research has been performed on highly regulating ground water levels to decrease aerobic mineralization while at the same time growing crops. This water table management is a common BMP throughout the EAA. In addition, five distinct Water Control Districts[74] fine-tune water tables on farm fields on a daily basis.[75]

[72] Gilbert, R.A., and Rice, R.W., Nutrient Requirements for Sugarcane Production on Florida Muck Soils, University of Florida/IFAS, 1998. [73] http://eaaepd.org/. Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Website. [74] Fla. Stat. Ch. 298 (2009). [75] Personal communication with David Davis, Administrator, South Florida Conservancy District, (2009) 

# Comment ID 1830.001.012
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management Pg 4212 FR Section E(2)(a) 5. DERM does not concur with the statement that there is sufficient scientific basis for use of chlorophyll-a as an indicator in Miami-Dade canals . There is limited data available for this sub-region, and in many cases, phytoplankton in the water column may not be the dominant form of plant in response to nutrient effects. Data from only 6 out of +75 monitoring sites representing only 4 of the 23 "WBIDS" in Miami-Dade were used for determination of nutrient (TN &

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4267Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals TP) criteria. Additionally, these stations are in the extreme north and west of the metropolitan area, and do not provide an adequate representation of the chlorophyll-a conditions of canals throughout Miami-Dade. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.016
Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 5. Chlorophyll is not an Appropriate Response Variable for Evaluating Impairment of Aquatic Life Uses by Nutrients in South Florida Canal Environments There is no direct evidence that nutrient concentrations are causing stress to biota within canals themselves, apart from other stresses (e.g. poor habitat), nor is there adequate understanding of canal biota beyond the fisheries resources. Despite differences in nutrients and chlorophyll, robust fisheries occur among all nutrient/chlorophyll regimes, poor macroinvertebrates occur among all nutrient/chlorophyll regimes, etc. The primary justification provided by EPA for including a chlorophyll criterion for canals was: "EPA considered chlorophyll a to be an appropriate indicator of nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of the observed seasonal flow regimes, particularly during the relatively drier winter months when flows are relatively lower and canal water residence time is relatively higher (as compared to wetter, summer months)." This implies that designated use and biology of canals during periods of no flow respond to nutrients in the same manner as lakes and not as streams. Since EPA provided no evidence to support this contention, this determination is arbitrary. Additionally, EPA's logic is fatally flawed since many lakes in Florida have pass through flows during various times of the year. This justification provides no indications that existing chlorophyll concentrations cause any undesirable biological response. The proposed rule states that canal criteria were developed following a similar approach as for streams, i.e. "Based on the available information for canals, EPA determined that the most scientifically sound way to derive protective numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida's canals is to use a similar approach to what EPA used to derive numeric nutrient criteria for streams." EPA recognized, however, the limitations of developing chlorophyll criteria for streams: "The ability to establish protective criteria for both causal and response variables depends on available data and scientific approaches to evaluate these data. Whereas, there are data available for water column chlorophyll (phytoplankton) and algal thickness on various substrates (periphyton) for certain types of streams in Florida, there arecurrently no available approached to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrientspecific response variables in Florida streams." The statement "there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient-specific response variables in Florida streams" is equally valid for canals. Specification of chlorophyll criterion is particularly inappropriate for the EAA region. The secondary justification provided by EPA for including chlorophyll criteria for canals was "evidence that canals are susceptible to impairment due to excessive chlorophyll based on the number of canals on Florida's CWA section 303(d) list with chlorophyll a cited as the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4268Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals parameter of concern." This statement is factually incorrect; chlorophyll is not mentioned as a parameter of concern or a concentration causing impairment in any of the impaired water bodies listed in the EAA (FDEP April 2009 Group 5 Verified List). Furthermore, EPA has previously acknowledged that phytoplankton is not considered an important source of impairment in EAA canals. EPA's (2007 Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Everglades, which specifically addresses nutrient impairment in EAA canals, does not contain a single mention of either chlorophyll or phytoplankton. xi. The report does list potential ramifications of nutrient impairment: "The increase in nutrients has resulted in documented impacts to several trophic levels of aquatic life -including microbial, periphyton, macrophytes, invertebrate, and vertebrate communities-that constitute exceedances of the FDEP's Class III narrative nutrient criterion." None of these impairments, however, are addressed by a chlorophyll criterion. The TMDL for the EAA canals does cite work conducted by Richardson et al (2007) that examines the response of the natural Everglades region to nutrient enrichment. xxii. Their analysis showed that, while the macroinvertebrate community was negatively affected by increasing phosphorus concentrations, algal indicators decreased in response to increasing nutrient levels. This conclusion was consistent with the information provided in the proposed rule, which showed a negative correlation between observed phosphorus and chlorophyll concentrations observed in EAA canals. The rule also showed a lack of correlation between chlorophyll and TN. EPA's proposed chlorophyll criterion is inconsistent with FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) that was approved by EPA. xxiii. The IWR establishes a chlorophyll threshold of 20 ug/L as a threshold for biological imbalance for planning list purposes. EPA's proposed chlorophyll criterion of 4.0 ug/L for canals is South Florida is substantially lower than the biologically verified threshold of 20 ug/L, rendering the proposed criterion arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1835-1.001.008
Author Name: Nieto G. Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation 5. There is no reasonable relationship between the proposed Chlorophyll a criteria and the designated uses of the Class III canals in the EAA. The inappropriateness of using a stream methodology for canals, is most apparent in the setting of chlorophyll a values for EAA canals. Ironically, while EPA inappropriately uses its stream methodology to set the numeric values for canals, it only sets chlorophyll a values for canals and not for streams. Chlorophyll a is not an accurate indicator of water quality because it bears no relationship to the biological responses within a water body. (Debusk 2010). For these reasons, as well as those contained in the EPD Technical Comment Paper and supporting materials in the Joint Submittal, EPA must reassess its methodology for south Florida canals, including the appropriateness of developing a chlorophyll a concentration. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4269Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that have noted the unique nature of canals in South Florida and that the methods for deriving numeric criteria for canals should be reviewed. EPA also acknowledges commenter concerns related to the available scientific evidence and linkages to designated uses; about using a reference approach; influence of groundwater on canals; EPA’s decision to not propose geographic-specific criteria for South Florida canals; the magnitude of the proposed TN and TP criteria, and EPA’s development of chlorophyll criteria. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.4 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR COMMENT No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.E.4.Q.1 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR COMMENT QUESTION 1 Comment ID 1191.001.007
Author Name: Cravens M. Organization: Mangrove Action Group In some Florida counties there may be a strategy to improperly declare a natural estuary is impaired, in concert with masquerading adjacent coastal canals to be a part of the natural impaired estuary, in order to misuse provisions for restoration or misuse site-specific alternatives within the canal developments, thereby avoiding water quality standards specifically being developed for the canals. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.133
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(4) Alternative Approaches for Comment Statement: EPA is requesting comments and views on the advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches to deriving protective criteria for south Florida canals. These approaches include: (1) A stressor-response approach (based on data from all canals or canals grouped by soil type), and (2) methodologies that have been employed to develop nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4270Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals targets in an EPAproposed TMDL for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Comment: See comments under Sections III.E(4)(a) and III.E.(4)(b) below. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.021
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 1) National Park Service staff in South Florida recommend the use of a more homogenous geomorphologic unit when setting nutrient criteria for canals discharging into Biscayne Bay. Specifically, we recommend the use of the Biscayne Bay Basin, which includes all of Miami-Dade County plus portions of southern Broward and northeastern Monroe Counties, as shown in Figure 1. 

# Comment ID 1830.001.024
Author Name: Blair S. Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 17. For information purposes only, an alternate approach for assessment of Chlorophyll a, is that of Boyer et al, (2009), wherein condition status assessment is based on comparison of annual medians of aggregated data with quartiles of the historical aggregated data. An example of application of this procedure, would be: the median of the water assessment unit aggregated annual data should not exceed the 75th percentile of the historical data set for the same area. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA thanks the commenters and acknowledges their remarks related to segmentation, an alternative procedure for computing criteria and impairment concerns with regard to flowing waters in South Florida. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.4.A - STRESSOR-RESPONSE APPROACH

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4271Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0729.001.006
Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport But I do agree with most of the concerns, especially what they wrote on canals. I'm going to close, and I just want to let you know that biology, I need you all to look at the biology with respect to concentration. Just don't look at concentration by itself. Is it affecting the biology, the fish, the grasses, the life in the canals. Thank you for your time.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4272Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Comment ID 0815.001.005
Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District As the district has 2300 miles of canals, I'd also like to touch on the criteria that were developed for the South Florida canals. We have now currently observed analyses to support the conclusion that the concentrations that you have proposed in your draft rule will, if there are concentrations that are higher than those, they will affect negatively the designated uses of the canals. We have not seen the link between nutrients and biology within the canals. We do not feel this has been clearly determined. In fact, a project that we're currently working on as a district, we're inventorying the ecological science that's been done shows that these symptoms have not been studied to the extent of other systems within South Florida, for example the Everglades. In fact, the FDEP also found this as a problem in setting numeric nutrient criteria for canals and did not recommend the use of any of the EPA guidance documents in setting criteria here. And as you remember, FDEP decided not to set numeric nutrient criteria for canals in their draft rule last year. So we urge you to reconsider the use of the inference model and the development of a reference approach for canals in South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.009
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works If an entity wishes to propose a site-specific alternative criteria for nutrients in canals, what forms of justification would be accepted under the proposed rule? Since macroinvertebrates are the only indicator of biologically healthy streams, how is this stream condition index interpreted for canals that have limited benthic habitat due to hardened shorelines or seawalls or for those that are impaired for fecal coliforms but without algae blooms? 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.008
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District The most significant finding of the SAB, in the January 8, 2010 draft report, approved with minor revisions, was that the stressor-response method can be used, but only if coupled with a separate assessment of the cause and effect relationship between nutrients and the response variable or variables under consideration. The stressor-response method, as found by the SAB, should never be used as a "..."stand alone" method because statistical associations do not prove cause and effect." "Further, the final document should clearly state that statistical associations may not be biologically relevant and do not prove cause and effect." [SAB 2010, Exec Summary, p. xii] The stressor-response method doesn't provide an assessment of other physical, chemical and biological variables that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4273Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals can be important in determining the aquatic life responses to nutrient concentrations. These other factors can dominate in determining a biological response as demonstrated by studies conducted by DB Environmental and Azurea, Inc. (2007) and DB Environmental (2009) to evaluate canal systems in South Florida and the Reedy Creek Improvement District. The reference site approach doesn't evaluate any causal factor and any biological response. Among the SAB findings that are particularly relevant to the use of this method to derive numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida canals is: A major uncertainty inherent in the Guidance is accounting for factors that influence biological responses to nutrient inputs. For criteria that meet EPA's stated goal of "protecting against environmental degradation by nutrients," the underlying causal models must be correct. Habitat condition is a crucial consideration in this regard (e.g. light [for example, canopy cover], hydrology, grazer abundance, velocity, sediment type) that is not adequately addressed in the Guidance. Thus a major uncertainty inherent in the Guidance is accounting for factors that influence biological responses to nutrient inputs. Addressing this uncertainty requires adequately accounting for these factors in different types of water bodies. [SAB Report, p. 37] The influence of habitat condition and hydrology in canals has been documented by DB Environmental (2010). The reference site method provides no causal link at all between any nutrient or other contributing causes and the biological health of aquatic life. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.036
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Chlorophyll Regressions (Stressor-Response Approach) USEPA suggested that a stressor-response approach might be applied to determine criteria based on relationships between nutrients and chlorophyll concentrations. Using this approach, chlorophyll is proposed as the biological response variable and TN and TP are the causal variables.

• Based upon a regression of chlorophyll vs. TN, USEPA estimated a TN limit of 3.6 mg/L. The model shows a weak relationship, evidenced by a 17% rsquare.

• The USEPA used an alternative regression specification, called a quantile regression, to estimate the 90th quantile of chlorophyll. Results are reported in Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 of the TSD (USEPA 2010a). USEPA failed to report that the quantile regression for TN is only statistically significant for the West region. The East region relationship between chlorophyll and TN is not significant with a p-value of 0.1385. The non-significant relationship is confirmed by the confidence interval around the slope containing 0.

• All region candidate endpoints are above the proposed criteria of 1.6 mg/L for TN and 0.042 mg/L for TP. In fact, the overall endpoints are much higher at 5.89 mg/L for TN and 0.181 mg/L for TP.

• Application of the stressor response model resulted in a TN criterion value of 3.3 mg/L and TP of 124 ug/L. The 124 ug/L TP value corresponds to concentrations that have been proposed for inputs to STAs (see USEPA 2008). The stressor response method is a better approach that at least attempts to establish a correlation between water quality and a biological endpoint.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4274Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

The scientific peer review panel (SAB 2010) further noted that the stressor-response method should never be used as a "...'stand alone' method because statistical associations do not prove cause and effect." . . . "Further, the final document should clearly state that statistical associations may not be biologically relevant and do not prove cause and effect." [SAB 2010, Exec Summary, p. xii] 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.134
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(4)(a) Stressor-Response Approach Statement: EPA considered two statistical analyses for assessing the stressor-response relationship between nutrients and biological response.. . . To apply either statistical approach for developing numeric nutrient criteria for TP or TN, EPA would need to identify the concentration of chlorophyll a that would be protective of the designated use for these canal systems. One approach would be to use EPA's proposed chlorophyll a criterion of 4.0 ug/l for canals to derive the TN and TP criteria from stressor-response relationships. Comment: The Technical Support Document "Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals" presents regression analyses and results based upon a chlorophyll a value of 20 ug/l, which is consistent with the screening threshold used by FDEP to identify possible nutrient impairment in streams and rivers. It is unclear to us why there would be any justification, based on the information presented, to use a criterion for canals that is so much lower than the criterion for streams and rivers. Results were not presented for a value of 4 ug/l. As discussed previously, no evidence has been presented to suggest that a chlorophyll a criterion of 4.0 ug/l is required in order to be protective of the canal systems. We reiterate our earlier comment that it is likely that the chlorophyll a values in the canals are low because the TP is low and the water bodies are phosphorus limited. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.017
Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior The USEPA recommends three approaches for developing numeric nutrient criteria (USEPA, Chap 4): (a) estimatingthe 25th percentile of all stations; (b) estimating the 75th percentile of reference stations; and, (c) establishing effectsbased criteria by quantifying a stressor-response relationship between nutrients and adverse effects on aquatic life. Although the last approach is the most desirable, it has proven elusive and difficult to develop because of complexities in ecosystem nutrient cycling and lack of site-specific information. The USEPA recognized the short-coming of this approach in South Florida and selected to use the 75th percentile of reference sites. Table 2 lists the USEPA estimated geometric means for methods (a) and (b).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4275Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Freshwater Stations, Bay Groups, and Impacted Status. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. USEPA Percentiles for South Florida. See original comment letter. In our analyses, we followed the statistical approaches (a) and (b) because we also found only limited data to support an effects-based criteria for canal nutrients discharging into Biscayne Bay. There is, however, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the elevated concentration of nutrients currently found in canal water poses the risk of environmental harm, particularly to the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. While there are presently no studies available relating the response of canal biota to nutrient impacts, the effects of discharging canal water that drains agricultural lands into an oligotrophic receiving water have been well-documented. A review of the technical literature provides evidence that the past and present nutrient input to the Biscayne Bay has altered the fauna and flora or ecosystem function. Szmant (1987) found nutrient-related canal impacts at the discharge points of the Mowry and Princeton canals. These included increased periphyton growth on artificial seagrass blades and the replacement of turtlegrass (Thallasia testudinum) with another species, shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii). Graves et al. (2005) concluded that nutrient pollution from canal discharge not only altered submerged aquatic vegetation, but there were significant impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the vicinity of canal discharges. Therefore, we recommend additional attention to the potential contribution of approach (c), especially as it contributes to the overall multiple-lines-of-evidence rigor supported by EPA. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA acknowledges the concerns that commenters have raised concerning the linkage from nutrients to designated uses, the use of the stressor-response approach, and the magnitude of the chl-a criterion with regard to flowing waters in South Florida. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.4.B - CALCULATIONS OF TP CRITERIA FOR THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA (EAA) USING A DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION APPROACH Comment ID 1476-2.001.027

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4276Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District H. The Use of the Everglades Protection Area TP Rule Criterion of 10 ppb as an Instream Criterion is Unsound The TP Rule for the Everglades Protection Area was developed after extensive research on biotic community responses to TP in P-limited marshes. The Rule was based on evidence from many different experimental and observational data sets, but did not include any use of or reliance upon a TP to Chla relationship in marshes or in canals. In fact, the TP rule included no data whatsoever on canal nutrient effects. This fact and the nearly complete lack of ecological similarity between canals and marsh sloughs, precludes the use of a criterion developed for marshes as an instream NNC for South Florida Canals in the Everglades Protection Area without qualification. If USEPA is going to justify the scientifically inappropriate application of the TP criterion to canals, then it must clearly specify that it is not an instream protection number, but is being asserted based upon downstream or in this case, lateral marsh interactions. Justification must be provided by USEPA for protecting some canals to 10 ppb, while neighboring canals on the other side of a levee are held to 42 ppb with Chla at 4 ppb and those 20 miles north are at 107 ppb TP and no Chla. This unjustified segmentation of criteria is not defensible. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.135
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(4) (b) Calculation of TP Criteria for the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Using a Downstream Protection Approach Statement: EPA considered using the methodologies described in the EPA-proposed TMDL for dissolved oxygen and nutrients to develop numeric nutrient criteria, specifically TP, for portions of the EAA. These methodologies are described in the TMDL in Section 4.2.2.1 of the TMDL document, "Approach #1: Estimate STA inflow loads resulting in WQS in downstream waters," and Section 4.2.2.2 of the TMDL document, "Approach #2: Simple modeling approach." Comment: In general, management of all canals in south Florida, not just those in the EAA, using a downstream protection approach makes the most sense when dealing these highly managed flood conveyance systems. The canals themselves were never intended to provide, nor do they provide, high quality aquatic life habitat. It is silly and wasteful to manage them as if they do. We would suggest, therefore, that the approach to canal management throughout south Florida focus on maintaining water quality within canals that will be protective of downstream waters. Approach #1 as outlined in the TMDL document depends upon actual performance data from monitoring of the STAs to define the target TP concentration. Because it represents actual measurements "on the ground," Approach #1 is preferred over the simple model discussed in Approach #2.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4277Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals 

# Response Comment IDs: 1777-2.001.135, 1476-2.001.027 Response: EPA acknowledges the concerns that these two commenters have raised in relation to computing downstream protective values for the EAA. EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. 

# III.E.5 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.E.5.Q.1 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES QUESTION 1 Comment ID 1715-3.001.032
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Evaluation of Alternative Methods USEPA asked for comments on several other methods that could be used to evaluate whether stations were in compliance with proposed criteria. Upper Percentile Criterion with Low Exceedance Frequency Approach The "Upper Percentile Criterion with Low Exceedance Frequency" approach listed under the section of the report entitled, "Alternative Approaches Considered by U.S. EPA" is severely flawed. This approach defines the maximum allowable value for a single sample, based on the 95th percentile of the data distribution for sites that just meet the long-term average criteria. If this alternative approach were applied as defined in the report, then occurrences of false positives are a statistical certainty when large numbers of samples are available. The approach at first seems reasonable, since it suggests that there is a five percent chance that any individual sample from a site that just meets standards would falsely indicate a violation. However, the likelihood of error is compounded

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4278Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals when a site is routinely sampled. The probability of encountering a "false positive," for a single sample maximum, increases greatly as the number of available samples increases (Figure 2). A site that is sampled monthly would have a 71% probability of exceeding the single sample maximum after two years (24 samples). A site that is sampled weekly would have a 99.5% probability of exceeding the single sample maximum after two years (104 total samples). Further, the documentation is vague regarding whether the "site" standard deviation discussed on page 4-9 of the Technical Support Document represents the standard deviation of all individual measurements, or the standard deviation of site means. If the calculation provided in the TSD represents the latter approach, the likelihood of obtaining a false positive would be significantly greater than shown in the figure. If this alternative approach is to be considered at all in the future, explicit Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Probability of At Least One Sample Exceeding the Single Sample Maximum Criterion for a Site Exactly Attaining the Water Quality Criterion from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. recognition must be given to the fact that false positives are a statistical certainty when large numbers of samples are available. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.033
Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Frequency-Duration Plus "Upper Percentile with Low Exceedance Frequency" In the Numeric Rule section "Other Data and Analyses Conducted and Considered by EPA in the Derivation of Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals." USEPA defined this approach in the TSD as follows: "The purpose of this analysis is to compute a "not to exceed" concentration for a single sample based on sites that meet the annual geometric mean criteria proposed for canals. Using the proposed criteria and the standard deviation, the one-sided 95% prediction interval was used to estimate the not to exceed criteria for a single observation. (USEPA 2010a pp. 4-9)". Unfortunately, it was not possible to fully test the implications of this method. The consultants were unable to replicate Table 4-4, the "Not to Exceed" Criteria Computations using the same relevant data set and derivation methodology indicated in EPA's proposed criteria.. Although they were able to match the number of site-years that met the annual geometric mean criteria, they were unable to match either the number of sites or the standard deviations. If the assumption is made that the statistics were calculated correctly and the false positive rate for a given site and sampling date is 5%, then the false positive rates assuming various sampling frequencies of a site are shown in Table 7:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4279Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South FL Canals Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 7. False Positive Rates for the "Frequency-Duration Plus "Upper Percentile with Low Exceedance Frequency" method at various sampling frequencies from EAA Environmental Protection District Comments on Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. Once again, the chance of wrongly declaring a site as being out of compliance, increases significantly as the number of site visits increase. In fact, a site sampled weekly, has almost a 100% chance of being declared in exceedance during the year. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.136
Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.E(5) Request for Comment and Data on Alternative Approaches Statement: The alternatives for Class III south Florida canal criteria in this proposed rule represent alternative approaches given the availability of data in the State of Florida to date and are consistent with the requirements of both the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations. EPA is soliciting comment on the alternative approaches considered by the Agency in this proposal, the data underlying those approaches, and the proposed alternatives themselves, including criteria expressed as an upper percentile maxima not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time in one year, similar to those discussed for lakes. Comment: See Sections III.E.(4)(a) and III.E.(4)(b) for comments on the alternative approaches. We do not believe that the upper percentile maximum not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time within a year is an appropriate measure of canal system impairment and will result in many false impairment designations for canals. Unless more than 10 samples are collected in any given year, which is almost never the case, a single failure of a single parameter will result in an impairment designation. We reiterate our concern that criteria for canals should reflect their unique nature as primarily water conveyance systems and not aquatic habitat. 

# Response
Comment IDs: All Response: EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4280